

Rand Paul Bill Would Curb NSA on Phone Records - uvdiv
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/rand-paul-bill-would-curb-nsa-on-phone-records/

======
uvdiv
Text of the proposed law:

 _" The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution shall not be construed to allow
any agency of the United States Government to search the phone records of
Americans without a warrant based on probable cause."_

[http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/EAS13699.pdf](http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/EAS13699.pdf)

("Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013")

~~~
dkulchenko
Is that the entire bill?

Seems extremely narrow-scoped and with no terms defined. IIRC, the ongoing
spying is not even warrantless - they're operating under a broad-scope warrant
issued by FISC, so this bill would do absolutely nothing.

~~~
uvdiv
Yes, the entire rulemaking part.

It's true the Verizon spying had a secret-court FISA warrant, but was that
warrant required to have "probable cause"?

~~~
mpyne
I believe the answer might actually be yes to that as well. Remember the NSA
treats analysis (search) of information as different from collection of
information.

Doesn't matter though, the proposed law talks about search of _American_ phone
records which the NSA is already forbidden (even with PRISM) from looking at.

In other words the new content of this law would be exactly zero, if that's
all it purports to add.

------
tzs
This bill would do absolutely nothing at all legally. Here is the operative
part of the bill:

    
    
       The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution shall not
       be construed to allow any agency of the United States
       Government to search the phone records of Americans
       without a warrant based on probable cause.
    

The 4th is part of the Constitution. Congress cannot change its meaning with a
mere bill. Changing the meaning requires a Constitutional amendment. So, no
effect from Paul's bill as far as that goes.

The courts interpret the Constitution, and due to separation of powers,
Congress can't tell the courts how to interpret it. So, no effect from Paul's
bill here, either. Separation of powers also prevents Paul's bill from having
any effect on the executive branch.

To make this sort of thing work, I think you'd have to go to the laws that
actually created or authorized the agencies whose behavior you want to change,
and amend those laws.

~~~
uvdiv
Can't you straighforwardly strike the "Fourth Amendment... construed" part and
leave the core "no agency of the US government... [shall]"? Because that's be
solidly in the purview of Congress. And my flimsy understanding of law is
that, if SCOTUS were to look at this, they would do something like what I said
-- respecting the _intent_ of the legislature as closely as possible -- rather
than throwing out the whole thing.

I think this bill isn't expected to pass anyway, so it makes sense if it's
been optimized for rhetorical, not legal, power.

------
uvdiv
'waterphone' \-- your comment history appears benign and helpful, I think you
deserve to know you've been hellbanned. The automated filter on HN will hide
your comments from most users. It is a waste of your time to comment if this
is not fixed.

(reply to invisible comment): You're welcome!

~~~
waterphone
Thanks. I noticed, and it's been happening off and on, but prior to today,
comments I was making were eventually being unhidden after a few hours. Not so
today, it seems.

------
jpwagner
For those of you missing the point, this "bill" is a bit tongue-in-cheek. He's
simply saying "Hey everyone! read the f$%^ing Constitution!"

~~~
anigbrowl
He's pandering to a simplistic interpretation of the Constitution. Back in
1979, the Supreme Court explained why searching phone records did not require
a warrant or constitute a search under the 4th amendment.

~~~
wwwtyro
Simplistic, or honest? And do you mean "explained", or "rationalized"?

------
microcolonel
Nothing will be curbing, you all think you have some level of control over
this process but you don't.

Stop trusting people who don't have motivation not to mess with your life.

What happens to the people behind these debacles? Nothing, absolutely nothing;
in addition, having them fired would just open up the position to more people
who would make the same actions.

A state will always seek to expand, and you will always go lax and let them,
it's best to just forego the whole pot of pain to begin with.

------
alayne
Like father, like son. Don't expect Rand to actually get legislation passed.

~~~
notdrunkatall
I think that's more an indictment of the status quo than an indictment of
their ineffectiveness.

------
canadiancreed
Funny how stuff like this only starts getting action from politicians once
it's politically expidiant to do so.

~~~
gruseom
That's what's significant about these recent disclosures and subsequent wave
of interest. Informed people may not have found them surprising, but to say
"what's the big deal?" is a mistake. The big deal is the state change in the
political discourse.

------
cpeterso
Statements from the President assert:

    
    
      "What you’ve got is two programs that were originally authorized by Congress, have been 
      repeatedly authorized by Congress. Bipartisan majorities have approved them. Congress 
      is continually briefed on how these are conducted ... Congress has been briefed 13 
      times on the programs since 2009."
    

So why haven't _any_ members of Congress spoken up about this program? Rand
and Ron, where were you?

~~~
uvdiv
_So why haven 't any members of Congress spoken up about this program? Rand
and Ron, where were you?_

Some _did_ speak up, pretty loudly. Did you read this story (Wyden & Udall)
when it came it out in 2012? I did.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/politics/democratic-
sen...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/politics/democratic-senators-
warn-about-use-of-patriot-act.html)

Here's follow-ups from this week, linking their warnings to the current
stories:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/politics/senators-
wyden...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/politics/senators-wyden-and-
udall-warned-about-surveillance.html)

[http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_23406958/sen-mark-
udal...](http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_23406958/sen-mark-udalls-
warnings-federal-domestic-spying-have)

Rand and Ron? I'm reasonably confident they've been against this from the
start (it's part of their core ideology), but Rand Paul was never on the
secret Senate committee that was allowed to know about this, nor Ron on its
House counterpart:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Select_Co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Select_Committee_on_Intelligence#Members.2C_113th_Congress)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Permanent_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Permanent_Select_Committee_on_Intelligence#Members)

Wyden and Udall were (on the Senate side), and they did inform the public.
Sort of. The public doesn't really care that much.

------
DanielBMarkham
“Fourth Amendment Restoration Act,”

Congrats to Paul for titling a bill with the name of what it actually does,
instead of these "Orphan and sick elderly relief act"s that end up doing 73
other things completely unrelated to orphans or the elderly.

Also congrats for such a small bill.

Both of these factors together lead me to believe that this is just
grandstanding, and the bill has no chance of succeeding. But still, here's
hoping other Congresspeople follow his lead and start making all bills like
this: single issue, clear, readable legislation that the public can openly and
clearly debate.

------
fiatmoney
Until they ignore it, just like they ignored the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. Or, in a secret legal opinion, construe "phone records" to
not include mere metadata about whom called whom from where for how long.

You can't get around the need to identify the people attempting to circumvent
the very explicit restrictions placed upon them and exclude them from the
levers of power.

~~~
pekk
They didn't ignore FISA. FISA (as extended after 9/11) is the basis for a lot
of the surveillance which is done today.

~~~
fiatmoney
"this program operated without the judicial oversight mandated by Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_surveillance_program](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_surveillance_program)

------
waterphone
I applaud the attempt, but after reading the text of the bill, will this do
anything? They obtained a court order authorizing this. Wouldn't it be better
to make it illegal to issue broad warrants for large numbers of people and
instead require one warrant per person?

------
pvnick
Rand Paul, killing it again.

------
drivebyacct2
Would it even? Whose to say it would be followed?

