NSA 'standing to sue' excuse in smack-down of lawsuit

[EVDebs]

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution's search warrant requirement,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Warrant_requirement

has some exceptions, though none use an a priori 'standing' requirement, logically. You simply be human and be in the USofA and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution applies to YOU. In fact, the law enforcement entity has to go to the courts first under the suspicion you MAY HAVE committed some sort of violation (conjured up somewhere, maybe ?) before they can come and get you, at least domestically in the USofA. This used to be the logic.

Times has changed, folks. Big Brother and his Federalist Society flunkies have plans for you. Under the Congressional Authorizations for Use of Military Farce, one from Sept 2001 (9-11 'war on terror', undefined and eternal) and the other from Oct 2002 (Iraq, same issue, eternal too ?), both have the War Powers Resolution embedded within them. These AUMFs are mentioned extensively in the 6th Dist Appeals Court decision,

ACLU vs NSA Nos. 06-2095/2140
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf

The War Powers resolution requires "clear" (read truthful), "situations" and "circumstances" prior to Congress authorizing military force IN COOPERATION with the President...not in SUBORDINATION to the President.

It seems the Federalist Society's agenda and the M/I/Congressional complex has found the judges it needs.

Time for Congress to fix this mess and re-examine those AUMFs, as Sen John Warner mentioned. And hey, Warner's from what political party ?

[ixion]

1. yep...here's a link to back that statement up...

It's talking about the First Amendment, but the "redress of grievance" applies as well...


http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/42899rk.htm


There are 45 words in the first amendment and this amendment protects the rights of citizens to speak, to assemble, to practice their religious beliefs, to publish their opinions and petition their government for redress of grievance.

[EVDebs]

5. Talks about 'abuse of power' too... Congress needs to reassert itself

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." == Preamble to Bill of Rights

Congress needs to stand up and reassert ITS powers before the Constitution is nothing but a bad joke anymore.

[Hosnon]

2. Every claim has a "standing" requirement.

Even Fourth Amendment violations. If your house is illegally searched, I cannot sue - you have to sue.

[EVDebs]

3. This was a 'blanket' spying operation, using what James Bamford calls

'vacuum cleaner' accumulation of database information. You're on the database, you're assumed to be guilty if the federal/state/whatever agency decides you meet their criteria.

If I have an almanac I'm a terrorist ? This is their logic. Both YOUR HOUSE AND MY HOUSE were illegally searched. They already violated the warrant requirement, their excuse is saying YOU didn't get singled out cuz you don't belong to, say, the right political party...I do, however.

[Hosnon]

4. This particular case may be valid. I was merely stating that

every plaintiff must have standing. Your post seemed to me to indicate otherwise.

My apologies if I was incorrect.

[EVDebs]

6. OK, in this NSA case WE ALL HAVE STANDING. That's what got lost in all this

These Federalist Society fellow travellers are taking us down the authoritarian road. We don't want to go there.

[Hosnon]

7. I just glanced over the opinion and saw that the

crux of the issue is really whether there is/was a particularized and concrete injury (general violations of the Constitution are not considered such injuries).

Could have gone either way - but I do wish this judge had fallen on the other side of the fence on this one.

[EVDebs]

8. Related interesting DU post on this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2907575

These judges may have opened Pandora's Box.

[flyingfysh]

9. Here is someone who DOES have standing to sue

See this article at slashdot.org: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/07/0544235.shtml

"'It could be a scene from Kafka or Brazil. Imagine a government agency, in a bureaucratic foul-up, accidentally gives you a copy of a document marked "top secret." And it contains a log of some of your private phone calls. You read it and ponder it and wonder what it all means. Then, two months later, the FBI shows up at your door, demands the document back and orders you to forget you ever saw it.' That is what happened to Washington D.C. attorney Wendell Belew. His lawsuit takes on special significance given today's Sixth Circuit Court ruling that surveillance victims can only sue the DOJ if they can prove they were affected."