DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Since there's so much talk about the Constitution on here...

Lets start the festivities with this:

This awful bill shows how Ted Cruz threatens the citizenship rights of all Americans

http://theweek.com/articles/604541/awful...s-all-americans

After his third-place finish in New Hampshire, GOP presidential contender Ted Cruz is trying to reinvent himself as a civil libertarian in a bid for Sen. Rand Paul's supporters. Paul's supporters should be very wary. If Cruz's extreme anti-gay and anti-immigration tirades don't give them pause already, the Expatriate Terrorist Act, Cruz's unconstitutional brainchild, which Sen. Paul refuses to support, certainly should.

The bill's alleged purpose, as per the Texas senator's explanation during the New Hampshire GOP presidential debate, is to stop Americans who've joined ISIS from returning home to "wage jihad against America." That adds up to all of 12 Americans give or take. In exchange, however, the bill would expose 300 million U.S. citizens — both naturalized and natural born, both at home and abroad — to the threat of losing their citizenship.

Cruz first introduced this monstrosity in the Senate in 2014, only to have it shot down. But since the San Bernardino attacks, he has renewed his efforts to push it through the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which he sits, and bring it for a floor vote. Meanwhile, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has introduced a companion bill in the House. And given that Republicans now control both chambers, absent a filibuster, this awful legislation could well pass Congress and reach the president's desk.

Why is it so awful?

To understand that, consider some background on what the government currently can and can't do: As per the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, citizenship is a right, not a privilege. As Justice Byron White explained in the 1980 Vance vs. Terraza ruling, "Expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct."

This means that the government cannot strip Americans of their citizenship without their consent — no matter how heinous their offense. "The government must establish that the individual knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally relinquished his right," notes Georgetown University's David Cole, "just as courts must establish that an individual knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally waived his trial rights before accepting a guilty plea."

But what the government can do is intercept ISIS agents when they try and re-enter the country, charge them with treason, sedition, or any number of other crimes, obtain a conviction, and put them away for a long time. The government can even potentially execute them. After a conviction — and only after that — Uncle Sam can launch a separate civil expatriation review to show that the offender intended to relinquish his or her citizenship, but with a lower evidentiary bar than the original conviction. Under current law, these offenses include such acts as bearing arms against the United States and incitement to rebellion.

Cruz's bill would change two things:

1. It would authorize the government to revoke citizenship rights without a court conviction.

2. It would also expand the list of expatriatable offenses to include "training" and "material assistance" to terrorist groups without defining either of those terms.

Cruz maintains that the bill would prevent Americans who have turned terrorist from re-entering the United States. This sounds good! But the more one thinks about it, the less sense it makes.

MORE PERSPECTIVES

PASCAL-EMMANUEL GOBRY
Marco Rubio can still win. Here's how.

MICHAEL BRENDAN DOUGHERTY
Conservatives have failed Donald Trump's supporters
If the government has evidence that these folks are indeed terrorists, then why should it merely strip them of their citizenship and stop them from returning home (or leaving if they are already here)? Why shouldn't it also prosecute them? And if it doesn't have evidence, then why should they face any consequences at all?

The only way to understand Cruz's bill is that it aims to give government the power to take away the citizenship not of Americans against whom it actually has hard evidence — but against whom it doesn't. In other words, the point is to revoke the citizenship not of known but merely suspected terrorists.

This is very dangerous.

Consider how it could work: Say the Justice Department informs the State Department that it suspects some Americans of being involved in a listed terrorist group in a way that signals they intended to relinquish their citizenship. Basically, the State Department would use some procedure not specified in the bill to verify that suspicion. If it's satisfied, it would issue certificates to these Americans that their passport and citizenship had been revoked.

If they are out of the country when this happens, they would presumably be barred from returning home, something that would force them to live in another country as stateless residents, possibly illegally. If they tried to re-enter America, they would be detained. But if they are already home, they'd be stateless residents whom the government could likely detain at will. If they are expatriated when abroad, the only appeal that the law extends, notes Niskanen Center's David Bier, is to the very State Department that took away their citizenship in the first place, and only if there is substantial new evidence.

The scariest part of the bill is that without due process or a trial or the presumption of innocence, many innocent Americans would be condemned without having any opportunity to refute the evidence against them. The government can accuse them of whatever it wants on whatever grounds it likes without challenge. This is the kind of thing that passes for justice in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

But also troubling is that the government could use its citizenship-stripping powers to persecute political actions that go against standing government policy. If merely offering "material assistance" is the standard, then what is to stop the government from revoking the citizenship of black Muslim Americans who distribute pro-Hamas material? Or Irish Americans who hand out pro-Irish Republican Army pamphlets? Both outfits are or have been on the government's terrorist list.

It is very unlikely that Cruz's Alice-in-Wonderland exercise that turns standing judicial principles on their head would withstand constitutional scrutiny. But such concerns have prompted Sen. Paul to distance himself from this bill even though he himself previously called for revoking passports of Americans fighting with ISIS. "The Constitution already provides a means to deal with this by trying someone for treason," a Paul spokesperson told me via email. "And he would oppose anything that takes away Americans' rights without due process."

Cruz, a Harvard-trained lawyer, boasts that as a teenager he could recite the entire Constitution from memory. His campaign website says, "Ted Cruz has spent a lifetime fighting to defend the Constitution [which] was crafted by our founding fathers to act as chains to bind the mischief of government and to protect the liberties endowed to us by our Creator."

Clearly, Sen. Cruz's memory is failing him now — because the bill he's drafted unchains the government to do unimaginable mischief to the rights of ordinary Americans.

__________

nah bruh. This guy has no business being president. Get him out of here.

Post the bill. I don't want opinion, I want the bill to see what it really says.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s247/text

it says everything the article says.

anyways, speaking of constitution, then anybody catch john oliver on sunday?

boy oh boy.....

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/...t-Voter-ID-laws

John Oliver is back and making the case against Voter ID laws
csmonitor icon Latest News
SAVE FOR LATER
Subscribe
As of February 2016, a total of 33 states have enforced the new voter identification requirements.
By Bamzi Banchiri, Staff FEBRUARY 15, 2016
Save for later
Eric Liebowitz/HBO via APView CaptionAbout video adsView Caption
John Oliver's Last Week Tonight is back – but without late-night television's usual coverage of presidential candidates. Oliver has said that the show's election coverage will “more likely to be about the process than the people.”

Last night Mr. Oliver debuted season three of the show with a takedown of the controversial voter ID laws, which have proliferated around the country following the US Supreme Court’s decision to curtail the Voting Rights Act.

Oliver specifically looked at laws that require a photo ID to vote, arguing that such laws, ostensibly aimed to prevent fraud at the polls by stopping voter impersonation, are tackling a problem that rarely happens.

Recommended:Could you pass a US citizenship test?
"While American history is littered with vote buying, vote tampering, and ballot-box stuffing, voter ID doesn't prevent those crimes,” Oliver said.

csmarchives/2011/01/110103-citizenship.jpg
TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGECould you pass a US citizenship test?

PHOTOS OF THE DAY Photos of the Day 02/16
“The only crime it prevents is voter impersonation – one person showing up to the polls, pretending to be someone they're not. Which is a pretty stupid crime, because you have to stand in line at a polling place and risk five years in prison and a $10,000 fine all to cast one probably not-consequential extra vote. … The truth here is voter impersonation fraud is incredibly rare."

According to a News21, a journalism project at Arizona State University, of the 28 instances of voter fraud convictions nationwide since 2000, only one was for voter impersonation, the form of fraud that voter ID laws are designed to prevent.

Yet proponents of Voter ID laws have long defended these laws, and often citing public opinion polls that show widespread support for their arguments. As many as 40 percent of the respondents in one survey, and 25 percent in another, believed that the US election system is plagued by voter fraud or vote theft, according to Reuters.

But opponents of these laws have accused these advocates of presenting lies to the public, saying that public’s apparent support for strict voter ID laws is based on a lack of knowledge. Opponents, including Oliver, argue that such laws disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters and disproportionately impact minority voters.

“In Texas, for instance, experts found that African-American voters were nearly twice as likely to lack voter ID, and Latinos were nearly two and a half times as likely,” said Oliver. “It's just one of those things that white people seem to be more likely to have, like a sunburn or an Oscar nomination."

A 2014 research from the Government Accountability Office found that turnout dropped among both young people and African-Americans in Kansas and Tennessee after new voter ID requirements took effect in 2012.

“There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud,” Richard Posner conservative US circuit judge wrote in a ruling. “And that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens.”

A total of 33 states have enforced the new voter identification requirements as of February 2016. Of those, 18 states require voters to present photo identification, while 15 accept other forms of identification. In some states, a voter who is unable to present valid identification may still be permitted to vote without casting a provisional ballot – a practise known as, non-strict requirement. In eight states of the 17 states that require a photo ID, the requirement is non-strict, while it is non-strict in 14 of the states that do not require a photo.

_____________

so there's a clip of the news reporting on the problem, but if you guys have HBO on demand, i suggest you watch the episode.

basically, the republicans were crying about voter id laws and fraud, even though they more or less caught only a handful of cases out of 1 billion votes.

but what they DID find was that those legislators who were crying about voter id laws, were actually casting votes for other politicians, caught on camera...

it was hilarious....and sad at the same time.

seems like politicians are all for the constitution....until they aren't.

John Oliver rocks!

No, it doesn't. It would seem that you and the article you posted missed this one line in the bill.

"if and when such person is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction"

That would mean the accused still get due process.

And you missed the part where we already have a law for that.

So do you support the bill or not?

I didn't miss that at all. It looks to me that this bill adds more conditions as reason to strip citizenship for treason. As I said, the article you posted states, "1. It would authorize the government to revoke citizenship rights without a court conviction.", where the bill clearly has a statement about due process. Therefore that entire article and your premise are a lie.

As the bill provides due process, I would have to say I do support it.

So you're for expanding the federal government then.

Do ever claim you're anti-federalist again. You just admitted that you're full of crap.

The article isn't a lie, btw. I already told you I don't trust anything you say, and you just proved me right again this morning.

Anyway, so these voter ID laws, questionable stuff for sure.

This seems like a good place to put this...


Apple vows to fight federal order to unlock San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone
49 minutes ago Comments Sign in to like Reblog on Tumblr Share

The debate over encryption has reached new heights in a legal battle between Apple and the FBI.

In response to a federal magistrate’s order requiring Apple to assist the agency in accessing data from the phone of one of the San Bernardino shooters, the company is pushing back, pledging to challenge the request in the name of its customers’ privacy.

CEO Tim Cook published a public response early Wednesday morning, just hours after a Riverside, Calif., judge signed an order asking the company to break into the encrypted iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook, who, with his wife, shot and killed 14 people at a holiday party in December.

“We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good,” Cook wrote in a letter to his customers. “Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.”

The 40-page court order from the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles requests that Apple’s engineers create a new iPhone operating system designed to bypass the company’s security features and install it on the iPhone 5C that belonged to Farook. Prosecutors hope to access “critical data” about the shooters, who had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State terrorist group, including people they were in contact with and where they traveled before the shooting.

Despite a warrant, prosecutors argued, “The government has been unable to complete the search because it cannot access the iPhone’s encrypted content. Apple has the exclusive technical means which would assist the government in completing its search, but has declined to provide that assistance voluntarily.”

The court order asks Apple to provide “reasonable technical assistance” in creating a new mobile operating system. This iOS would disable a feature in the iPhone that automatically erases its data after too many failed attempts for access. This way the FBI can attempt to unlock the phone by submitting an endless series of passcodes via something known as a brute-force attack.

While the order applies only to Farook’s device, Cook argued that creating this new software would ultimately compromise the privacy of the “tens of millions of American citizens” who use Apple devices.

“In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession,” he wrote. “The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.”

Yahoo News

How does that expand the government? The law adds conditions to an already existing law. It doesn't say they are going to open a new Department of Terrorist Monitoring. The exact same people already employed by the government will make decisions based on new criteria. That is some warped perspective you have, when you will just make up 'facts' to 'prove' your point. Thanks for the morning laugh.

I hope you feel better this morning now that you've found your 'proof'. It's obvious you can find it whenever you want.

Oh, and as for Cruz's bill. I'm not going to pretend to understand all of the nuances of it but it does seem like we already have laws available to do everything he wants this bill to do. Somebody would have to show me what the added benefit to this bill is... as well as the added risks...

To use the second amendment argument, we already have laws and criminals don't obey them... what good would more laws do?

Bruh I was just about to post that.

Man I have no idea what the right answer to that is.

On one hand, why should Apple be resisting unlocking the phone of two dead terrorist?

On the other hand, it could just be a way for the goverment to bypass privacy laws. We've already seen government over reach with regards to the patriot act and the NSA. This could set the wave of the government once again collecting bulk data on all citizens in the guise of national security.

Man I dunno.

You got found out. If the laws were already in place, than why does Cruz need to make a new bill?

Untrustworthy.

I have to admit, I'm not sure what the right answer is either but I do have great appreciation for Apple's logic... sure, we could do it for this one case as the court order says, but who is to say that once it's created, that it stops there. In the wrong hands (and yes, often times I consider the government "the wrong hands") this could be a serious problem down the road.

Yea, because then when will the court orders stop.

Also, how far reaching could this snowball effect go? Say, international laws?

Well the next logical steps would go from...

"this guy is a known killer who shot 14 people, help us unlock his phone so we can track his terrorist ties"

to

"we have evidence to believe this guy is bad, we have obtained a court order, and we need to check up on him, so unlock his phone"

to

"we THINK this guy might be bad, so show us what is in his phone"

to

"Hell with it, just give us the software so we can unlock phones when we feel it is appropriate"

Right.

And you know what? I wouldn't be opposed to this happening to people immigrating to the country, as some new vetting process, but once they become legal residence, along with our own citizens, it becomes a problem.

Not that they couldn't do the same thing with Android phones.. but you could see this being a reason to leave apple in favor of android in the short term... if apple has this backdoor created which could be used by apple, by the government, or potentially be leaked/stolen by people with bad intentions... I'd get an android phone.

It just looks to me that it makes statues more specific. As of this time, current treason laws mostly involve a person working for or swearing allegiance to another country, instead of a terrorist movement. As ISIS, the Taliban, Al Queda, and the muslim brotherhood are not countries, this is specifying terrorist organizations instead. I could see a terrorist getting off of current treason laws due to the technicality that they were not agents of another sovereign country.

Should they provide a tool for the government to unlock any phone? No. Should they unlock this one phone if the warrant specifies what they are looking for? If the warrant is proper and follows the law, yes.

Fair enough, maybe there are some provisions of this I could get behind. We are, after all, living in an ever changing world where our enemies no longer live within borders or claim allegiance to single government entity...

Which creates the dilemma.. the technology to do what they are asking does not currently exist. Can they compel apple to actually create that technology for this purpose?

And once that technology is created, it won't go away... there is no putting that genie back in the bottle. It will forever be out there for use (or misuse) as time goes by...

I don't know which is more disturbing about this, that our government is asking for a tool to decrypt the phones, or that our government can't break Apple's encryption. Aren't they supposed to be a leader in that?

With that being said, I think them looking for a tool to decrypt all these phones is as bad as stop and frisk. It's a 4th Amendment violation.

you keep saying the free market does this and this, and that the government doesn't function properly.

now all of a sudden you expect them to be the leader in this?

He has a point.. our government is supposed to be breaking codes and doing all of this espionage of foreign governments, their militaries, their satellites, etc... and they can't hack into an iPhone?

No, I don't expect them to be. I just find it sad that they always fall so far behind. You forget that I used to work for the government at one time, and they were always behind. In modern technology, they are usually about 2 years behind, now I fear it's much farther. Let's also not forget that if one division of the government can crack that encryption, they will not allow other departments to use it to keep the secret from getting out.

we are always behind. hell, the military, we still use old ass equipment, which for some ungodly reason, is still a decade more advance than all the other countries equipment.

i dunno how or why, but whatever. i look at the defense budget, and then i remind myself of all the units that still have to old ass 5 tons with manual transmission, and i'm wondering where the cash is going.

but defense spending seems to have very little oversight. for something deemed so important...

Part of the problem seems to be that technology is evolving much faster than military need. As you said even our "old" stuff is still light years ahead of what most other countries have (unless they bought it from us)...

You spend billions developing the next great tank advancement or airplane advancement and it would cost hundreds of billions to put it into service... but what the military has is already good enough to defeat just about anybody.

I sort of thought the intel on Iraq in 2003 would have dispelled this myth.

Students And Veterans Turned Away From The Polls Under Wisconsin’s New Voter ID Law


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/17/3750519/wisconsin-voter-id-primary/

Wisconsin’s local primary election put the state’s new voter ID law to the test Tuesday, causing problems that left officials seriously concerned about how voters will be impacted this November.
The election decided several mayoral contests and helped conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley clear a key hurdle to maintaining her seat on the state’s powerful Supreme Court.
The law will be in place again for the presidential primary on April 5, which is likely to see greater voter turnout. But even in Tuesday’s local election, issues with ID arose.
Though the law’s implementation was mostly smooth, some students and veterans were unable to cast regular ballots, because the state doesn’t recognize a federal veterans’ benefits card or a state university ID for voting purposes.
After few overall complaints came in, Gov. Scott Walker (R) tweeted that all was well in the Badger State.

Yet local media reported that turnout was extremely low — in the single digits in some counties.
Dane County Executive Joe Parisi, whose county includes the University of Wisconsin’s tens of thousands of students, strongly disagreed with Governor Walker that all is well with the new ID law.
“We did hear of one veteran who was turned away because all he had was his military ID,” Parisi told ThinkProgress. “Student participation was also very low, and among those who turned out, some didn’t have the proper ID. About 15 or 16 young people had to cast provisional ballots in Dane County.” Such ballots are often never counted.
Students also reported problems in Eau Claire. University of Wisconsin freshman Nathan Gilger, who was initially turned away for having an out-of-state drivers license, told local reporters, “I definitely see the new I.D. requirement as a deterrent. It feels more like a chore to vote.”
Unlike New Hampshire and a handful of other states, Wisconsin does not count either a college ID or a veterans’ benefits card as an acceptable voter ID. A lawsuit aimed at forcing to the state to accept these alternate forms of ID failed last year.
That ruling, in October, was yet another chapter in the multi-year legal saga around the Wisconsin voter ID law championed by Governor Walker as he explored an ultimately unsuccessful bid for president. Over the last few years, the law has been struck down by some courts for unconstitutionally burdening voters of color, and upheld by others, ultimately getting the go-ahead from the U.S. Supreme Court.
It’s concerning when we look forward to the fall presidential election.
Leading up to Tuesday, residents were also concerned about the new voter ID law creating delays at polling places. County clerks teamed up with university students to clock how long it took poll workers to check IDs, and the results were troubling.
“It did definitely slow down the processing time,” said Parisi. “It’s not as big a deal in a spring primary election, where there is low turnout and short lines, but it’s concerning when we look forward to the fall presidential election. Extremely long lines can discourage people from voting, and now we’re adding this other element, which is only going to hurt that process.”
Parisi and voting rights advocates in the state are also raising concerns about a new bill the Republican-controlled legislature passed this week. That bill would offer residents the ability to register to vote online, but would eliminate a program that holds voter registration drives at senior centers, college campuses, and community events. It would also mandate that all absentee ballots that don’t arrive to the proper office by election day be thrown out. Currently, those ballots are counted as long as they are post-marked by election day.
“They gave with one hand and took away with another,” Parisi said of the state’s lawmakers. “This is just another in a long line of Republican legislation that make it harder for students, the elderly, and people in poverty to vote.”

This sets a very bad precedent going forward. Even if the government only did it extreme circumstances, the vulnerability is still there. The bad guys know about it and will take advantage of that.

While I hate apple, I do commend them for taking a stand.



Apple letter to it's customers

Every time voter I.D. laws get brought up, I wonder just what I'm missing.

When I walk in to vote, the ladies greet me by name. But, I sure don't get a ballot (card) until I show my i.d. and sign.

What is so damn tough about showing an i.d.

Heck, you can't get a prescription drug without an i.d. (legally). You shouldn't be able to get any welfare without an i.d. You can't even buy sudafed without an i.d.

You're using common sense again, you really need to stop that.

The bad guys always will. What was the quote, those who take security over freedom deserve neither? We either have our freedoms or security.

Sounds to me like there were a few isolated incidents and a little confusion on the part of the polling folks as you would expect with the implementation of any new law of this kind (see also: ACA) but that overall it went fairly well.

The other article I read clearly stated that the guy who was turned away because the Veterans Administration card isn't accepted also had a drivers license on him and could have used it to vote but decided to "make a point" and left without voting.. that was his decision.

So the headline from thinkprogress, a website I absolutely despise because it makes Fox News look downright centrist.. is misleading. The veteran wasn't turned away, he walked away on his own, when he could have voted based on the IDs he had in his wallet.

It's still a problem. You need to check out the John Oliver episode. Especially when they caught the legislators who were crying about the laws turn around and double vote in place of another legislator.

The hypocrisy is an absolute problem.

It makes you wonder if these guys refuse to buy Claritin, as you have to show a license to buy it from the pharmacy if it has decongestant. They must never buy alcohol either. Do they get paid check or cash.

With everything else you have to provide an ID for, why is voting such a problem?

This is a unique place to put this:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/state-senate-...3224.html?nhp=1

State senate: OK to deny counseling due to religious belief