Sunday, December 29, 2013

[Victims of Court Corruption] * * * "The U.S. Constitution vs. The Federal Judiciary" * * *

The U.S. Constitution vs. The Federal Judiciary
By Ron Branson,
National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief

The U.S. Constitution claims to be the supreme law of the land, and all officials thereunder shall swear by an Oath to uphold and defend it as such.  "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several states legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, of both the United States and the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."   U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 2 & 3.

The U.S. Constitution leaves no room for guess work! Nonetheless, we are now faced with two conflicting federal judges on the same subject, which is the constitutionality of the NSA seizing personal and private information on all Americans.

Federal Judge William Pauley, in countering the findings of unconstitutionality of the prior federal judge, claims that Congress, through its passage of the Patriot Act, known as 911, overturns the prior federal judge's ruling of unconstitutionality. It therefore follows that Federal Judge Pauley believes that the governments seizure of information without Probable Cause as required by the Fourth Amendment, is overcome by Congress's Patriot Act. In order to reach the answer to this question, we must first determine whether Congress had the power under the Constitution to pass the Patriot Act, of which Judge Pauley relies upon in voiding the Fourth Amendment.

Hence, I have entitled this as "The U.S. Constitution vs. The Federal Judiciary." This is not really an argument of federal judge vs. federal judge, as no matter how you slice it, we have to deal with the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the law, and all government must swear by Oath to uphold and defend it as the supreme law of the land.

Thus, the only conclusion we can arrive at on this NSA issue is that Judge Pauley believes his ruling based upon his own findings that the Patriot Act overturns a finding of unconstitutionality, is that Acts of Congress are greater than the Constitution which originally created Congress and granted it its limited powers. Such twisted argument is as if one argued that they are their own grandfather, and fathered their father! Federal Judge Pauley ruling upholding the NSA is void on it face, because it is based upon a finding that Congress overruled the Constitution.

He should be tried for treason. But who can try him for treason but those to whom he relies for making such finding.
I have little doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will find that the Constitution loses, and everyone's privacy can be looted without our permission by the government without Probable Cause because it is in the national interest, and done to "keep us safe." Let us not forget the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

*   *   *

Judge cites 9/11 in overturning NSA ruling

NEW YORK -- Citing the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, a federal judge ruled Friday the National Security Agency's bulk collection of millions of Americans' telephone records is legal, a valuable tool in the nation's arsenal to fight terrorism that "only works because it collects everything."

U.S. District Judge William Pauley said in a written opinion the program lets the government connect fragmented and fleeting communications and "represents the government's counter-punch" to the al-Qaida's terror network's use of technology to operate decentralized and plot international terrorist attacks remotely.

"This blunt tool only works because it collects everything," Pauley said. "The collection is broad, but the scope of counterterrorism investigations is unprecedented."

Pauley's decision contrasts with a ruling earlier this month by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon, who granted a preliminary injunction against the collecting of phone records of two men who had challenged the program. The Washington, D.C., jurist said the program likely violates the U.S. Constitution's ban on unreasonable search. The judge has since stayed the effect of his ruling, pending a government appeal.

Pauley said the mass collection of phone data "significantly increases the NSA's capability to detect the faintest patterns left behind by individuals affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations. Armed with all the metadata, NSA can draw connections it might otherwise never be able to find."

He added: "As the Sept. 11 attacks demonstrate, the cost of missing such a threat can be horrific."

Pauley said the attacks "revealed, in the starkest terms, just how dangerous and interconnected the world is. While Americans depended on technology for the conveniences of modernity, al-Qaida plotted in a seventh-century milieu to use that technology. It was a bold jujitsu. And it succeeded because conventional intelligence gathering could not detect diffuse filaments connecting al-Qaida."

The judge said the NSA intercepted seven calls made by one of the Sept. 11 hijackers in San Diego prior to the attacks, but mistakenly concluded he was overseas because it lacked the kind of information it can now collect.

Still, Pauley said such a program, if unchecked, "imperils the civil liberties of every citizen" and he noted the lively debate about the subject across the nation, in Congress and at the White House.

"The question for this court is whether the government's bulk telephony metadata program is lawful. This court finds it is. But the question of whether that program should be conducted is for the other two co-ordinate branches of government to decide," he said.

A week ago, U.S. President Barack Obama said there may be ways of changing the program so it has sufficient oversight and transparency.

In his ruling, Pauley cited the emergency of the program after 20 hijackers took over four planes in the 2001 attacks, flying two into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and a fourth into a Pennsylvania field as passengers tried to take back the aircraft.

"The government learned from its mistake and adapted to confront a new enemy: a terror network capable of orchestrating attacks across the world. It launched a number of counter-measures, including a bulk telephony metadata collection program -- a wide net that could find and isolate gossamer contacts among suspected terrorists in an ocean of seemingly disconnected data," he said.

-- The Associated Press

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.


Post a Comment

<< Home