Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 176 posts

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#71

Post by DannyBee »

tomkinstinch wrote: post #68
guelo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. The telecom's suit is the challenge that you're talking about. The second suit claims that the first lawsuit is illegal. It would mean that you're not allowed to challenge the government in court. It would make your flowery language invalid.

> It would mean that you're not allowed to challenge the government in court. IANAL, but is it not true that you can only sue the government to the extent that it lets you? Can a lawyer chime in on the extent of sovereign immunity?

You can generally only sue the government to the degree it lets you. In the US, there are various torts acts, etc. There are exceptions to sovereign immunity, but it's not worth getting into.

In practice, when it comes to constitutional rights, this doesn't matter as much as you think, because the government will sue you if they really care.

IE they file criminal or civil charges against you for something you are not doing because you believe it to be unconstitutional.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#72

Post by white_devil »

tomkinstinch wrote: post #68
guelo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. The telecom's suit is the challenge that you're talking about. The second suit claims that the first lawsuit is illegal. It would mean that you're not allowed to challenge the government in court. It would make your flowery language invalid.

> It would mean that you're not allowed to challenge the government in court. IANAL, but is it not true that you can only sue the government to the extent that it lets you? Can a lawyer chime in on the extent of sovereign immunity?

> IANAL, but is it not true that you can only sue the government to the extent that it lets you?

It doesn't really matter what laws say about that. Your only recourse against wrongdoing by the government is the justice system run by the very same government. It's certainly within its power to decide not to punish itself.

This is perhaps something to think about.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#73

Post by eurleif »

anigbrowl wrote: post #61
jtc331 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly you didn't read the article. Asking the court to require compliance would have meant that they would have filed a response to the telecom's suit and made the claim that the NSL was warranted and that the suit should be thrown out. Instead they're claiming that the mere act of filing suit is in itself illegal.

And they went to court to make that claim. As I've explained wlesewhere in the thread [1], exemption from judicial review is something that is often written into legislation by Congress. It's not the case that people in the DoJ or the WH wake up one morning and decide they can't be bothered with the courts any more. The law is designed to cut the Judicial branch out of the loop. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?i…

Precedent is not the same thing as constitutionality. How is that possibly constitutional?

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#74

Post by jholman »

anigbrowl wrote: post #64
guelo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. The telecom's suit is the challenge that you're talking about. The second suit claims that the first lawsuit is illegal. It would mean that you're not allowed to challenge the government in court. It would make your flowery language invalid.

I am not wrong, and you have misunderstood my claim. See the judgment at https://www.eff.org/document/nsl-ruling-march-14-2013 Page 2, lines 11-13.

I'm trying to understand your claim here.

If I understand correctly, the sequences of events is like this:

A) FBI issues NSL to ISP, demanding information, and prohibiting disclosure. B) ISP starts a proceeding challenging constitutionality of gag C) FBI starts a separate proceeding reasserting validing of gag

D?) Wired also claims that the FBI claimed that step B violated the law, but I don't see that in the ruling link you posted.

Why is step C needed? Not that it seems that bad....

But if D happened, that seems really alarming.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#75

Post by darkarmani »

bmelton wrote: post #48
brown9-2 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What civil liberties have been eroded?

He extended the PATRIOT act, is potentially skirting the fifth amendment, and is trying to seriously infringe the second amendment. Edit: If you disagree with my assertions, you can make your own informed opinion based on this data: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/su...

> and is trying to seriously infringe the second amendment.

Oh, come on. Free speech is way more infringed than the second amendment and all anyone cares about is firearms which are more dangerous than useful against tyranny.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#76

Post by bmelton »

darkarmani wrote: post #75
bmelton wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He extended the PATRIOT act, is potentially skirting the fifth amendment, and is trying to seriously infringe the second amendment. Edit: If you disagree with my assertions, you can make your own informed opinion based on this data: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/su...

> and is trying to seriously infringe the second amendment. Oh, come on. Free speech is way more infringed than the second amendment and all anyone cares about is firearms which are more dangerous than useful against tyranny.

Just because chose to excerpt my statement down to the second amendment doesn't mean that it's the only one I care about. It's also not all that "anyone" cares about.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#77

Post by skore »

nwzpaperman wrote: post #62
ericd wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems as though you may need to be a corporatist to raise a war chest comparable to the corporatists. It seems like the logical/natural steady state of elections with deregulated campaign finance...

Regulated campaign finance...who writes the rules? The problem is fundamental to the structure and it is inevitable that, over time, every government becomes tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson made it clear for the ages, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Governments are of man and man is prone to taking advantage of and abusing his or her peers. "When the peop…

> Regulated campaign finance...who writes the rules?

Ideally,

> the people

I think the "people -> government" relationship is broken in the US and I'm not sure whether all the "blood of patriots and tyrants" talk helps or hurts that.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#78

Post by icelancer »

eurleif wrote: post #73
anigbrowl wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they went to court to make that claim. As I've explained wlesewhere in the thread [1], exemption from judicial review is something that is often written into legislation by Congress. It's not the case that people in the DoJ or the WH wake up one morning and decide they can't be bothered with the courts any more. The law is designed to cut the Judicial branch out of the loop. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?i…

Precedent is not the same thing as constitutionality. How is that possibly constitutional?

Maybe it isn't, but that is not for the DoJ to decide.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#79

Post by kyboren »

sixQuarks wrote: post #70
brown9-2 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What civil liberties have been eroded?

Well,the fact that the president now has the right to kill an American citizen with no due process is a pretty good example.

The president now asserts the right, but he does not actually have it. If our ossified judicial system has any remaining merit, he will (eventually) be called to account for his unlawful use of military force--assuming his successor doesn't pull a Ford and pardon him.

EDIT: Good point.

Post reply on HN