Vermont becomes twelfth state to introduce legislation to banish NSA

MONTPELIER, Feburary 3, 2014 - Vermont is now the 12th state with legislation to take on NSA spying.

Last Tuesday, Rep. Teo Zagar (D-Windsor-4-1), along with co-sponsor Reps. Susan Davis (P/D-Orange-1), Patricia Komline (R-Bennington-Rutland) and William Stevens (I-Addison-Rutland) introduced the Fourth Amendment Protection Act to prohibit any state support of the NSA.

Based on model legislation drafted by the OffNow coalition, House Bill 732 (H732) would make it state policy to "��refuse to provide material support for or assist or in any way participate in the collection of a person'��s electronic data or metadata by any federal agency or pursuant to any federal law, rule, regulation, or order unless the data is collected pursuant to a warrant that particularly describes the persons, places, and things to be searched or seized."

http://benswann.com/vermont-becomes-twelfth-state-to-introduce-legislation-to-banish-nsa/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=nl

But what difference does it make, it was illegal to begin with so how does passing legislation to make it more illegal affect things?

Who is going to enforce the new laws when the old ones are just ignored?

There is that point. If it is illegal to start with, making it illegal doesn't actually do anything.

Well it does do one thing, fills up all those volumes of "codes", like Title 26 and then all those Titles that Odumbocare is spread across.

it is a shame the states seem to forget that they can introduce
amendments to the constitution

i sure would like some knowledgeable people run and win govt offices

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

U.S. Constitution › Article V
Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution,

or,

on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states,

shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

----------------------

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev

"I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run."
- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

And why would they want to?

And what point would you be trying to make: the original 13th Amendment or the question of the 14th or 16th Amendments.

Of course you wouldn't be trying to discuss the states option and the inherent perils thereof.

And then, what would need to be amended? Of course, amending the Bill of Rights. Wouldn't that then make unalienable rights alienable? This all sure is a puzzle.

If you're going to quote something, why not go straight to the source Constitution of the United States

it is the source a copy of constitution on cornell law web site

if it is not correct plz post your reference

i did the spaces for easier understanding


besides i do not nor do you have access to the true source
all sources are a copy

how is it illegal? when were laws passed saying they couldn't collect digital data on people?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article VI, Paragraph 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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.

It has always been so, since the ratification of the constitution in June of 1788 with all states ratifying by May 29, 1790.

Correctamundo!

simply pointing out the Requirements to amend the US Constitution!
So stop putting words in People's Mouths!

that says nothing about digital data collected from the internet... is the internet a public venue? i think so, and what you do in public is a freebe for the police...i think people are making to big a deal over this, because no laws were ever set about the internet data collecting.

i'm not sure, but i don't think they had internet in 1790 or 1788...

actually you are being governed by what is called the Federal Register!

http://www.openmarket.org/2013/12/29/a-new-year-of-regulation-obamas-record-setting-federal-register/

The Federal Register is the daily depository of proposed and final rules and regulations, presidential documents, agency notices and such.


The unelected do the bulk of the lawmaking in America, and the administration from the Environmental Protection Agency, to John Podesta, to the president himself promise to circumvent Congress whenever they can't constitutionally enact their left-wing agenda.

Meanwhile, the administration also didn't bother to release the final 2013 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulation; only the draft was issued.


Enjoy reading the rest of the Article!

They had a lot of "unreasonable searches and seizures". It is up to the courts to define that concept further.

secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects