×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Rand Paul Files Suit Against Obama Over NSA's Collection of Metadata

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the bipartisan-effort-to-blame-the-other-party dept.

The Courts 380

RoccamOccam writes Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is filing a class action lawsuit against President Obama and other members of his administration over the National Security Agency's collection of phone metadata, a practice he believes violates the Fourth Amendment. In a YouTube video released Tuesday, Paul compared the government surveillance to the warrantless searches practiced by the British military prior to American independence."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cult leader's son behaving like a cult leader (-1, Troll)

fascismforthepeople (2805977) | about 10 months ago | (#46232897)

Notice that the official announcement was made through youtube; Rand Paul knows that his father's most devout followers consider youtube to be the finest means of communication ever developed by man - simply because he loves to be seen on it.

Re:Cult leader's son behaving like a cult leader (3, Funny)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 10 months ago | (#46232989)

I don't know, I think YouTube makes sense. After all, we just learned that it's the number one website in the world [slashdot.org] . A smart followup would be to edit Wikipedia entries (#2), and every politician has a staff to do that.

Re:Cult leader's son behaving like a cult leader (5, Insightful)

Calavar (1587721) | about 10 months ago | (#46233055)

Come on, this is 2014. Youtube is a legitimate way to make announcements. The two official State of the Union videos have about a million Youtube views put together. More people watched Bill Nye's evolution/creationism debate on Youtube than live on television. Sure, there's lots of crap on Youtube, but there is plenty of crap on cable TV as well. Is NBC a bad source of news just because Jerry Springer is distributed by NBCUniversal? Is CBS a bad source of news because it broadcasts Survivor? Same thing applies to the internet. One one end, you have nytimes.com and politico.com and on the other end you have timecube.com. The fact that Timecube exists doesn't automatically discount everything else on the internet.

Re:Cult leader's son behaving like a cult leader (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233157)

Is CBS a bad source of news because it broadcasts Survivor?

Yes. Yes it is :)

Re:Cult leader's son behaving like a cult leader (5, Insightful)

LVSlushdat (854194) | about 10 months ago | (#46233341)

CBS is an integral part of the new US Department of Propaganda. You will never hear/see ANYthing on any of the official government "mouthpieces" that the government does not want you to hear/see. Places like Youtube are, for the moment, the one of the few places to still get "non-government-approved" news/information.. In the case of Rand Paul, he is one of the VERY few members of Congress who seem to actually have the people's best interests at heart. I'm thankful we have him on our side.. Obama-bots, feel free to mod me down... You *know* you want to...

I'm not a Republican, nor a Democrat, I'M AN AMERICAN!! AND I'M PISSED!!!!

Re:Cult leader's son behaving like a cult leader (0)

MadMartigan2001 (766552) | about 10 months ago | (#46233415)

Well said, sir!

Re:Cult leader's son behaving like a cult leader (4, Informative)

jxander (2605655) | about 10 months ago | (#46233569)

Agreed.

While I certainly don't agree with all of Rand Paul's ideas, I applaud him for actually HAVING ideas in the first place. Far too many Congress-critters only care about keeping the status quo (and using the status quo to keep their 'hookers and blow' funds fully stocked.)

But Timecube does discount everything else on the (4, Funny)

sl3xd (111641) | about 10 months ago | (#46233251)

The fact that Timecube exists doesn't automatically discount everything else on the internet.

You obviously haven't actually spent much time reading Timecube. After Timecube, everything else on the internet can easily be discounted.

Re:Cult leader's son behaving like a cult leader (0, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 10 months ago | (#46233659)

Come on, listing openly liberal sites like nytimes.com in the "rational" end of the spectrum does nothing for objective discourse. The opposite of nytimes.com isn't timecube.com, it's stormfront.com.

Re:Cult leader's son behaving like a cult leader (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233057)

right, and posting your stupid opinions on slashdot is way savvy

Re:Cult leader's son behaving like a cult leader (-1, Troll)

MadMartigan2001 (766552) | about 10 months ago | (#46233407)

And what have you done to help your country fight the NSA? Oh ya, you probably voted for Obama. Puke.

Rand Paul is the only honest politician left. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46232907)

So few role models left in the world. This man is truly my hero for standing up to the machine.

Re:Rand Paul is the only honest politician left. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46232977)

Tell me about it. We as a society have abandoned the wealthy. Who speaks for them anymore?

Re:Rand Paul is the only honest politician left. (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#46233131)

Tell me about it. We as a society have abandoned the wealthy. Who speaks for them anymore?

Remember, dude, thanks to Obama, when Sarah Palin becomes President, she'll be able to spy on you at will, fire missiles at you from drones, and arbitrariliy decide which laws are enforced and which aren't.

Be careful what you wish for...

Re:Rand Paul is the only honest politician left. (0)

AK Marc (707885) | about 10 months ago | (#46233239)

So she'll be just like Bush?

Re:Rand Paul is the only honest politician left. (2, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 10 months ago | (#46233319)

No, Obama is just like Bush, only he spends more which I never thought was possible. Palin would be like the worst of every President rolled into one then crossed with Jar Jar Binks.

Re:Rand Paul is the only honest politician left. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233505)

... Obama is just like Bush, only he spends more ...

he does? hrm, you're going to have to inform the rest of the world that they've got the numbers wrong [typepad.com] ...

Re:Rand Paul is the only honest politician left. (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 10 months ago | (#46233349)

Obama passed Bush in the drone attack business long ago, and Bush has been out of office for 5 years. Assuming you can't manage to be more insightful your snark needs an update.

Re:Rand Paul is the only honest politician left. (2, Insightful)

MadMartigan2001 (766552) | about 10 months ago | (#46233441)

The Democrate-vs-Republican argument is over. They are all the same. Please and try and keep up with the times.

Re:Rand Paul is the only honest politician left. (1)

Yunzil (181064) | about 10 months ago | (#46233375)

Not much to worry about there. She'll never run again.

Re:Rand Paul is the only honest politician left. (2)

MadMartigan2001 (766552) | about 10 months ago | (#46233463)

Correct. But the sad fact is, she actually was in the running at one time. Therefore, it's logical to assume that another drone, similar to sister Palin will eventually run and perhaps have a chance to win.

Re:Rand Paul is the only honest politician left. (0)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#46233473)

So few role models left in the world. This man is truly my hero for standing up to the machine.

Is there any Kool Aid left?

I agree with the claimed motives... (1, Troll)

Kenja (541830) | about 10 months ago | (#46232915)

but man is that guy a douche... I think I'll have to be against him on this just due to general principals and because I doubt the sincerity of his motivations based on past nonsense.

Re:I agree with the claimed motives... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233069)

but man is that guy a douche... I think I'll have to be against him on this just due to general principals and because I doubt the sincerity of his motivations based on past nonsense.

Just curious what those "principals" would be. Rand is a pretty stand-up guy. Certainly not perfect. But if by "non-sense" you mean his belief that problems not effectly resolved by increasing the footprint of the federal gov't, I would suggest you read up on Obamacare. And the US Postal System. And NASA. You get the picture ...

Re:I agree with the claimed motives... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233321)

I'd have to counter that the postal system would be perfectly fine it is wasn't for congress flexing muscles and trying to destroy it to promote use of more private systems and also to destroy strong unions. The Postal Service is totally self-sufficient and would have no issues if they were left to do what they need to do instead of paying for pensions 70 years down the line.

NASA on the other hand is a civilian organization that has been on the chopping block for the sake of not promoting education. Can't think of any other reason they would cripple future technology. I'd ask to put it under a military branch at this point, just so that it can get even a drop of that unneeded funding, but that would defeat the purpose.

Not sure how the vetting for the contractor for the health insurance exchange happened, but that is certainly a screw up. The company that got the contract hasn't had a successful contract previously, and they keep getting jobs. There is money where there shouldn't be, as that is the only conclusion that is easy to guess. Either that or sheer incompetence.

I personally don't like Rand Paul. He takes stances on issues I don't agree with. I don't know if that is better or worse than his father. I like Ron Paul, but he picks the wrong reasons for the right actions. I don't want to watch a car crash in slow motion, so I couldn't vote for either one. Didn't vote for Obama or Cheney or Romney. I voted for the idea that a third party may win. If Ron Paul ran and wasn't screwed by his own party like last election, I may vote for him. The US can withstand a single presidential term, and I'd pray to the FSM he'd break enough things so that an easier / clearer system comes into play.

Re:I agree with the claimed motives... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233405)

but man is that guy a douche... I think I'll have to be against him on this just due to general principals and because I doubt the sincerity of his motivations based on past nonsense.

Just curious what those "principals" would be. Rand is a pretty stand-up guy. Certainly not perfect. But if by "non-sense" you mean his belief that problems not effectly resolved by increasing the footprint of the federal gov't, I would suggest you read up on Obamacare. And the US Postal System. And NASA. You get the picture ...

So you're saying that you think it's difficult to get mail delivered anywhere in the country and/or that the US didn't manage to land on the moon in 1969?

Re:I agree with the claimed motives... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233559)

I'm saying the Postal System would be out of business if it had to play by the rules, and it's not 1969 anymore. Last time I checked PRIVATE companies and Russia are contracted by NASA to carry cargo into space. Don't be an idiot.

Re:I agree with the claimed motives... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233149)

Yes, fuck our country because the guy standing up for what's left of it is a "douche". Fucking moron.

Re:I agree with the claimed motives... (-1, Troll)

AK Marc (707885) | about 10 months ago | (#46233259)

He's not standing up for it. He hates the Constitution as much as any other politician. He just highlights the few areas of overlap better than some others.

Re:I agree with the claimed motives... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233293)

Citation needed.

Re:I agree with the claimed motives... (1)

MadMartigan2001 (766552) | about 10 months ago | (#46233519)

Oh please...

Re:I agree with the claimed motives... (1, Insightful)

smartr (1035324) | about 10 months ago | (#46233243)

Let me guess.... You voted for Obama, and you would vote for him again despite the NSA spying. The NSA spying in no way makes Obama a douche, because he's a unicorn. The NSA issue isn't that important, and you'd vote for another president who supports such action, as long as they're a Democrat?

Re:I agree with the claimed motives... (-1, Troll)

evil_aaronm (671521) | about 10 months ago | (#46233489)

It depends. I voted for Obama both times, but, really, the alternatives were McCain and Mittens. If there were a better alternative, I might have voted for that. And I don't consider a fringe candidate a better alternative. Until a third party can rival the GOP, a vote for a third party is as good as a vote for the GOP.

Re:I agree with the claimed motives... (1, Insightful)

ClintJCL (264898) | about 10 months ago | (#46233715)

Your 3rd party logic is fucked up. I could just as fallaciously claim a vote for a third party is as good as a vote for the democrats. Also, a world occupied by people like you would never have a rival 3rd party, because of your own catch-22 requirement for voting for one. Great job. You're part of the problem without realizing it. At least you're not evil. Peace.

Re:I agree with the claimed motives... (1)

MadMartigan2001 (766552) | about 10 months ago | (#46233495)

If you are waiting for Jesus to appear and run for office, you may be in for a long wait.

Pick your favorite amendments! (2, Insightful)

fascismforthepeople (2805977) | about 10 months ago | (#46232949)

Rand Paul has open disdain for other amendments of the constitution. He is using the fourth amendment to bring more attention to his presidential aspirations but when his corporate masters tell him later that the fourth amendment gets in the way of profit he will be in a hurry to backpedal.

Re:Pick your favorite amendments! (1)

khallow (566160) | about 10 months ago | (#46233113)

Rand Paul has open disdain for other amendments of the constitution.

Like what?

Re:Pick your favorite amendments! (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#46233269)

Rand Paul has open disdain for other amendments of the constitution.

Like what?

The one's about taxation.

But that won't stop simple-minded hatemongers from playing the false equivalence game.

Re:Pick your favorite amendments! (1)

callmetheraven (711291) | about 10 months ago | (#46233635)

The one's about taxation.

The one that taxation owns?
Syntax error, and ignorant.

Re:Pick your favorite amendments! (1, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | about 10 months ago | (#46233291)

13th 14th* and 15th.

also, section 1 and 2 of article III

*he claimes it' good, but then also says it' snot good. Depending on weather or not it's use happens to be aligned with his politics.

Re:Pick your favorite amendments! (1)

MadMartigan2001 (766552) | about 10 months ago | (#46233549)

Citation needed

Re:Pick your favorite amendments! (1)

JWW (79176) | about 10 months ago | (#46233181)

So not liking the 16th or 17th amendments means that you have to sit idly by while the government erases the 4th???

Re:Pick your favorite amendments! (1)

Wormsign (1498995) | about 10 months ago | (#46233387)

When you make statements about the ENTIRE constitution, how "Congress must obey it", and how "it's not just a piece of parchment" as Paul says, yeah. If you claim the whole thing must be obeyed but don't give the same respect to the other parts, you are being disingenuous.

Re:Pick your favorite amendments! (1)

JWW (79176) | about 10 months ago | (#46233555)

Paul is saying that there are parts he doesn't like, he's not saying that they should be violated.

I don't like the income tax myself, that doesn't mean that I don't pay it since its the law.

But the government is violating our fourth amendment rights right now.

Re:Pick your favorite amendments! (1)

callmetheraven (711291) | about 10 months ago | (#46233653)

and also openly attempting to criminalize the 2nd.

Re:Pick your favorite amendments! (0)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about 10 months ago | (#46233361)

So there's some sort of rule that you either have to support all amendments to the Constitution, or none of them?

That's got to be news to an awful lot of people who oppose the second amendment.

Re:Pick your favorite amendments! (3, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 10 months ago | (#46233399)

You know he wants to end the Federal reserve right? Can you imagine ANY "corporate fat cat" liking that idea? He has a slightly better chance at getting elected than his father, but basically all the money in corporate America will be against him should he get nominated. His only real chance is if the market collapse we all know is coming, hits before the election.

Re:Pick your favorite amendments! (1)

MadMartigan2001 (766552) | about 10 months ago | (#46233535)

Are you serious? What planet are you from? I'll bet you still wear your Obama 2008 pin huh?

Re:Pick your favorite amendments! (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 10 months ago | (#46233689)

He is using the fourth amendment to bring more attention to his presidential aspirations

By all means continue to vote for candidates that ignore the constitution instead of referencing it.

I agree with him.. (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 10 months ago | (#46232955)

but it is still ironic that the people that gave him the power, and started the surveillance state are not suing Obama for continuing it.

Re:I agree with him.. (1)

paulpach (798828) | about 10 months ago | (#46233059)

but it is still ironic that the people that gave him the power, and started the surveillance state are not suing Obama for continuing it.

This makes no sense. Are you saying that you expect Bush to sue Obama for continuing the mass surveillance?

Perhaps you did not mean to put that "not" in there. In that case, you are confusing Bush with Rand Paul simply because they are republicans. In reality they are as far apart ideologically as can be. Not only that, but Rand Paul was not a senator when the mass surveillance started, and both him and his father opposed the patriot act from the very beginning.

Re:I agree with him.. (3, Interesting)

callmetheraven (711291) | about 10 months ago | (#46233691)

He thinks that Obama started the surveillance. Not that it absolves anyone, Obama's fully guilty of continuing Bush's crimes.
I think the point was that that the left appears to be anxious to turn America into a prison state, as long as it's their guy running the prison.

Good except for the politics (1)

OffTheLip (636691) | about 10 months ago | (#46232973)

Rand may be right but his reasons for doing this are not us.

Re:Good except for the politics (3, Funny)

JWW (79176) | about 10 months ago | (#46233121)

Your post is confusing we.

Re:Good except for the politics (1)

MadMartigan2001 (766552) | about 10 months ago | (#46233573)

That's right. Fuck the messenger even if the message is correct.

Case gets moved to FISA court, then disappears (1)

bazmail (764941) | about 10 months ago | (#46232985)

Unfortunately, when you own the law and pervert it until it becomes a tool of repression, people like Rand Paul and their sensibilities don't matter.

Re:Case gets moved to FISA court, then disappears (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233073)

That's not how the FISA court works. There's no legal way a civil case such as this can be moved there.

Re:Case gets moved to FISA court, then disappears (1)

bazmail (764941) | about 10 months ago | (#46233129)

>There's no legal way

I'd point you to:

>Unfortunately, when you own the law....

Rand Paul Files Suit Against Beta (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46232991)

Thank you Rand Paul. Fuck beta!!!

Needs more uumph (1, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | about 10 months ago | (#46232999)

Obama and his administration should be sued and should be impeached, and it's not just for surveillance, the fucking guy is a murderer and he brags about it [youtube.com] . It shouldn't be just an action class lawsuit, it should be a criminal investigation into this mass murderer.

Pointless (4, Insightful)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 10 months ago | (#46233001)

The courts will just dismiss this case for "lack of standing" as they did [yahoo.com] his father's lawsuit against Obama for violating the War Powers Act regarding Libya.

The Constitution provides a remedy for the Executive Branch violating laws, and it's not having the Legislative Branch go to the Judicial Branch. Congress should pass a veto-proof law clarifying its intention that universal wiretapping is against the law, and then if the Executive Branch persists, then start impeachment proceedings, where members of Congress act as judge and jury. Rand Paul's lawsuit is nothing but grandstanding -- similar to the conservative all-talk-no-results Republicans have been feeding their constituents for the past half-century, but this time it's libertarian all-talk-no-results. And unconstitutional to boot.

(Congress could conceivably start impeachment proceedings now without first passing clarifying legislation, but impeachment is a card that realistically can be played only once every couple of decades, so you want to make sure. If you don't have the votes for legislation, you sure aren't going to have them for impeachment. (You can also substitute "ethics and political will" for "votes".))

Re:Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233079)

So unless a veto-proof majority of congress passes legislation, it's bye bye checks and balances? I guess the NSA will be listening to us for a while longer...

Re:Pointless (1)

fizzer06 (1500649) | about 10 months ago | (#46233217)

It's up to the voters to save this country by booting out the politicians who allow this to go on. But wait, they promised to give me shiny things. We is doomed.

Re:Pointless (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 10 months ago | (#46233277)

Nope, that's not needed. Just pass the law and get it vetoed. That's sufficient to cause problems for the president. Eventually he'll stop vetoing, even if it takes a few years for him to be replaced. Instead, Congress gives the president more power because "he'd veto it if we gave him less". That doesn't make sense either.

And yes, there's nothing that can be done without a supermajority. The two options are - pass a law, or impeach. Both must have a supermajority to be successful.

Re:Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233279)

Unless Obama wants to own it, he wouldn't veto this.

But, Rand needs to target the house and senate, not the President. There were no laws broken, even if he lives in some other world where he doesn't agree with what happened.

Re:Pointless (4, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about 10 months ago | (#46233191)

You may be right about the "lack of standing" issue, but established law is against him anyway. They will have to challenge a number of precedents to win this case, and that may not be easy. Even then there are going to be problems running into Article II arguments during a time of military conflict. The simplest way would be for Congress to pass a law that clarifies its stand.

As to impeachment, it isn't that hard. It is conviction in the Senate that would be the sticking point. There is no way the current Democratic Senate would ever convict Obama over this matter. He is effectively immune. Just look at the way the administration is altering implementation and features of the Affordable Care Act. It is being done in essence by decree. They are doing things that the law doesn't allow for, and I doubt there will be much fallout. That is the irony of this entire controversy. People keep claiming that the NSA's actions are illegal and unconstitutional, but they aren't. It has been decided many times in court, the Congress has passed laws authorizing it, and the President(s) have authorized it. And yet everyone is up in arms about it. And yet when you look at the lawless changes to the Affordable Care Ace, and the IRS political intrigue, it is mostly chirping crickets from the media and most people commenting here. It almost makes you wonder if people are really concerned about lawlessness, of if they only care about what they think is their ox being gored.
   

Re:Pointless (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 10 months ago | (#46233301)

People keep claiming that the NSA's actions are illegal and unconstitutional, but they aren't

They might be legal but they are certainly unconstitutional by any common sense reading of the Constitution.

Thus Ron Paul's refrain "legalize the constitution."

Re:Pointless (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 10 months ago | (#46233433)

Cold re "decided many times in court, the Congress has passed laws authorising it, and the President(s) have authorised it" are basic color of law efforts that do not remove the 4th amendment protections.
US courts, Congress and other parts of the US gov cannot just bypass 4th amendment protections depending on their party political views, needs or wants any decade or term due to some issue.

Re:Pointless (1)

MadMartigan2001 (766552) | about 10 months ago | (#46233723)

The supreme court determined slavery to be legal and the return of fugitive slaves to be constitutional. The law is not always moral. When you reference court decisions to validate your point you are effectively resigning your morality to your masters. Do not fall into that trap. Think for yourself and stand up for what you know is right/wrong. "time of military conflict" -- that would be the last 20 years in America with no end in sight. But of course, there is no military conflict because only the congress can wage war. So once again, The wars we are in are considered "legal" because they are not "war". I think George Orwell had something to say about this.

Re:Pointless (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 10 months ago | (#46233253)

The good news is the open courts in the US can be great places to start good law reform:
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org... [freedomwatchusa.org]
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying... [eff.org]
Skilled legal teams all over the USA are slowly working their way up the US court system exposing vast illegal domestic surveillance networks and the use of parallel construction.

Re:Pointless (1)

callmetheraven (711291) | about 10 months ago | (#46233741)

You really think the courts are not corrupt? They will just rubber stamp whatever their federal masters want, and suppress what they don't. Violate that gag order that they slap on you and do federal hard time, so after you get buttreamed in court you can't even complain.

Re:Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233295)

Who has standing to sue the US government? We are all being spied on by them. Your claim seems to state that the executive branch can do anything they want, to you and I, with or without congresses approval, and there is no recourse other than to beg our representatives to pass legislation and impeach the president. Don't I have standing to sue, since I am a victim of the spying? Rand Paul is being spied on too, doesn't he have standing as well, whether he is a senator or not?

Re:Pointless (1)

paulpach (798828) | about 10 months ago | (#46233305)

The Constitution provides a remedy for the Executive Branch violating laws, and it's not having the Legislative Branch go to the Judicial Branch. Congress should pass a veto-proof law clarifying its intention that universal wiretapping is against the law, and then if the Executive Branch persists, then start impeachment proceedings, where members of Congress act as judge and jury. Rand Paul's lawsuit is nothing but grandstanding -- similar to the conservative all-talk-no-results Republicans have been feeding their constituents for the past half-century, but this time it's libertarian all-talk-no-results. And unconstitutional to boot.

No. The executive does not have the power until the legislative passes a veto-proof law banning the power. It is supposed to work the opposite way, where a law needs to be approved by both the executive, legislative, and even then the judicial can still strike it down if it deems it unconstitutional. But that still fails because as the patriot act and many other laws demonstrate, the legislative branch passes (purposely) very vague laws that allow the executive to interpret whatever he wants out of it.

As it is, Boehner is Obama's puppet and might as well be on the same party. He even worked with Obama to kill a bill banning of the mass surveillance already. Trying to do _anything_ at all through the legislative branch would be truly pointless. This may not go anywhere, but it still has a much better shot than expecting both Boehner and Reid to even bring a bill to the floor.

Re:Pointless (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 10 months ago | (#46233367)

No. The executive does not have the power until the legislative passes a veto-proof law banning the power. It is supposed to work the opposite way, where a law needs to be approved by both the executive, legislative, and even then the judicial can still strike it down if it deems it unconstitutional.

OK, what is the remedy, and is that remedy provided for in the Constitution?

Re:Pointless (1)

briancox2 (2417470) | about 10 months ago | (#46233313)

Wrong. This is a class action suit on behalf of cell phone owner's. That gives this case standing.

This is not only a political stance suit like his father's. This is a legitimate suit of a class that has been directly wronged. Standing will never be questioned.

Re:Pointless (2)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 10 months ago | (#46233351)

Wrong. This is a class action suit on behalf of cell phone owner's. That gives this case standing.

Who specifically has been harmed in which specific manner? What were the specific monetary damages incurred?

Re:Pointless (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 10 months ago | (#46233379)

Legislation is only an option if the new laws are actually obeyed.

Re:Pointless (1)

smartr (1035324) | about 10 months ago | (#46233499)

I can understand the cause for cynicism, but I'd also point out that there is a huge difference between a nutty congressman grandstanding and a senator who is a serious presidential contender pressing the courts. Courts tend to do wacky things when it sounds like the shit is going to hit the fan. If Rand actually successfully pushes this through somehow, it probably would not help his chances in further elections because the changes will have been made and presidential candidates won't be openly promoting NSA spying. If they ignore him, it sets him apart from the rest of the crowd. If it accelerates him to Presidency, then effectively the shit is going to hit the fan, so the courts better do something...

Re:Pointless (1)

MadMartigan2001 (766552) | about 10 months ago | (#46233627)

libertarian all-talk-no-results

At least they are talking about it. All you can do is wring your hands and point out how it is not even worth trying. I'm glad you were not in charge during the war of independence when it made no sense to even try and fight the mighty British. I guess DNA for backbone fades after a few generations.

Re:Pointless (1)

Chelloveck (14643) | about 10 months ago | (#46233697)

Congress should pass a veto-proof law clarifying its intention that universal wiretapping is against the law

Why in the world would they do that? The vast majority of Congress want the government to have wiretapping powers.

Re:Pointless (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 10 months ago | (#46233739)

Congress should pass a veto-proof law clarifying its intention that universal wiretapping is against the law

Why in the world would they do that? The vast majority of Congress want the government to have wiretapping powers.

I agree with you, but I said "should" not "would".

Isn't he targeting the wrong body? (1, Interesting)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 10 months ago | (#46233017)

The first thing Obama did was get Congress to sign off on all the domestic spying so that he wouldn't take the fall. They kept doing it all, but now the feds have legal cover. Mind you, I think it's all shamelessly unConstitutional but you probably have to attach the laws.

Re:Isn't he targeting the wrong body? (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 10 months ago | (#46233179)

Congress signed off on it because that's how it's done. Obama didn't 'get them' to do it. It's not like he held a gun to their heads.
Same with Bush administration.

Re:Isn't he targeting the wrong body? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 10 months ago | (#46233359)

The unConstitutional part covers all the aspect of color of law and other token legal efforts to get around the US Constitution. The legal cover will fail in open court. The neat aspect is the open court arguments can be seen by all.
The US stands by its freedoms and rights or has to revert to using secret laws in secret courts - sooner or later good lawyers find out and it all surfaces in open court challenges again and again.
The only way for the US gov to undo its Constitutional aspects of law is to do so with secret parallel courts and hope the good US defence lawyers and skilled legal press never get to understand too much...
New secret security courts or open court, the full protection of the US Constitution is always with you :)

What about Bush 2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233053)

Didn't this start under Bush 2? I mean, it's great that Rand is going after the current crop of criminals, but why not include the prior crop as well?

Re:What about Bush 2? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 10 months ago | (#46233283)

Because he's a member of the prior crop. It's always bad when the other guy uses the powers you gave your guy.

Re:What about Bush 2? (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 10 months ago | (#46233623)

The phrase you're looking for is "Slippery Slope."

Nixon and others used the IRS to get back at people and organizations, now it's done by the current administration. Has congress reined that in? No.

each day our liberties get whittled away, whether it's by the local city governments passing retarded laws like "you're trees can't be placed there on your property" to the feds who create secret courts that you have no visibility into. It's time that the elected officials of this nation get booted out at every turn. I don't care if they're good or bad, just vote for the other guy in the next few elections and then we may see some action about doing the peoples' business instead of lobbyists and special interests out there.

Also I would push more legislation on revolving door congressman/senators and government officials from working in a lobbying position for at least 10 years after their position ends with the government. That way you wouldn't have Chris Dodd for example pushing SOPA now that he's head of the MPAA.

It is declared... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233103)

...the presidential election campaign season has begun!

Where no woman has gone b4 (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 10 months ago | (#46233139)

Slashdot Nomad (closer to hermit actually): Lawsuit good.

Kirk: But Rand Paul is a libertard leader.

Nomad: Error...error...libertard bad but does good...logic error...

Kirk: You failed to detect your error -- you have made two errors. You failed to correct your error -- you have made three errors.

Nomad: Error...error...must sterilize...must sterilize.

Kirk: No you don't. You won't ever mate anyway.

Nomad: Oh god...now really must sterilize! (blam)

New right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233147)

The world's right wing needs more people like him.

SIgh. (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 10 months ago | (#46233165)

Congress is how to address this issue. This is a PR stunt that will get nowhere. Plus it will confuse the issue even more.

Re:SIgh. (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#46233281)

Congress is how to address this issue.

So.. lynch mobs on the Capitol steps? Burning effigies in their home districts?

I'm snowballin', help me out here.

Need an ACA class action (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233213)

Someone needs to sue on behalf of the millions of low wage full time workers of large employeers that won't be getting their ACA compliant health plans because Obama again deferred the Employer Mandate, this time out to 2016. These people should have had their plans a year ago, but Obama keeps kicking their benefits forward beyond the next election.

And how much outrage on behalf of the working poor has appeared in our media? Nothing. It's been eased [cnn.com] a bit, no worries. A mere speed bump [npr.org] .

How long will these people have to live to actually witness the change from a law that will be half a decade old next year?

Bush-Cheney Intel policies and personnel. (2)

leftie (667677) | about 10 months ago | (#46233271)

Obama has allowed much of Bush-Cheney's Intelligence policy/personnel to remain in place, but it was implemented by Bush & Cheney.

Re:Bush-Cheney Intel policies and personnel. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233647)

This. It was created by the Republicans. I don't understand why the irrational Obama bashers think he is involved with it in any way.

A Defeat for the Constitution (2, Insightful)

The Cat (19816) | about 10 months ago | (#46233285)

When a United States Senator feels that he cannot restrain the Executive Branch except by enlisting the aid of a judge, we have lost the Republic.

Mr. Paul, you are a UNITED STATES SENATOR. You have all the power you need to put a stop to anything government does that you don't like. Write legislation. Get it passed. If the president vetoes, OVERRIDE IT. Congress was given more power than any other branch for a reason. Use it.

While you're at it, how about legislation that educates Congress on their role and power in the federal government? Given nonsense like this, it seems such legislation would be pertinent.

Also while you're at it, repeal the 17th amendment. The Senate is supposed to be a check against both the Executive Branch AND the House. Restore the Constitution to its original purpose.

Re:A Defeat for the Constitution (0)

Yunzil (181064) | about 10 months ago | (#46233413)

You were doing so well right up until that 17th amendment thing.

This suit will last about a day in Federal Court (1, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | about 10 months ago | (#46233585)

while I admire the initiative the first Federal judge who hears the case will toss it because Holder and his bunch of cronies will say 'National Security' and that a mere Federal Judge won't be able to hear the case.

Case Closed.

What Paul should do is motivate his colleagues in Congress and git rid of the FISA court and get us back on track by dismantling this bullshit that they've created and turned a blind eye to. That's the only way this system will stop intruding into our lives. While they're at it pass a Privacy bill of rights that also keeps Google and other large data exaggerators out of our lives too.

Better Recent Examples of Unjust Surveillance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233663)

[quote]... Paul compared the government surveillance to the warrantless searches practiced by the British military prior to American independence.[/quote]

While I agree with the grievances against the surveillance programs, I was struck by Paul's reach so far to the past for a historical parallel to unjust investigations. I see how this is probably more politically effective in reaching the goal of successful reforms by referencing a historically distant era and now-foreign villain, but a more recent and more analogous example of Americans being unfairly targeted by their own government would be conservatives spying on liberal groups in the twentieth century - from suspected communists to civil rights leaders like MLK to anti-war groups.

bit3h (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46233675)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?