NSA's 4th Amendment Destruction Facility in Bluffdale

So Marc Robert's (R- Santaquin) introduced legislation to keep anyone from aiding and abetting the NSA's facility.



http://benswann.com/breaking-utah-legislators-move-to-kill-nsa-data-center/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=nl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think the NSA provides a necessary service. But I also think it has over-stepped its bounds. And I have no problem with phone chaining numbers.



For instance, we know Person A is a bad guy terrorist. He's spoken to Person B - who we also know is a bad guy. But Person B is in the US and he's spoken to Person C, who is a US citizen and is in the US. And we don't know if Person C is a bad guy. I have no problem finding our more about Person C and seeing if Person C has spoken to other people we know are bad guys.



I get that it's hard to find the needle in the haystack. And I don't understand the logic in then making that haystack as large as possible.



I remember expressing concerns with my Dad about the Patriot Act and the expanded powers of NSA and the federal government. He wasn't as concerned because he thought GWB was trying to protect the country. I said I wasn't concerned about GWB abusing those new powers, but some future president/adminstration. I just didn't think those abuses would begin with the very next president/administration.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Person A is a bad guy terrorist. He's spoken to Person B - who we also know is a bad guy. But Person B is in the US and he's spoken to Person C, who is a US citizen and is in the US. And we don't know if Person C is a bad guy. I have no problem finding our more about Person C and seeing if Person C has spoken to other people we know are bad guys.

Get a warrant.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I remember expressing concerns with my Dad about the Patriot Act and the expanded powers of NSA and the federal government. He wasn't as concerned because he thought GWB was trying to protect the country. I said I wasn't concerned about GWB abusing those new powers, but some future president/adminstration. I just didn't think those abuses would begin with the very next president/administration.

Bush was just as bad as Obama is. Bush's administration began all the warrantless surveillance. Both made themselves Kings. They are doing the same things King George did that inspired the revolution. Yet because of a pretended dichotomy in government people allow the usurpation of their freedoms.



Anyone who hasn't fought tooth and nail to shut down NDAA, the patriot act, and the NSA should be ashamed their inaction. So call your Utah representative now and put a stop to this now.

jvquarterback wrote:

Person A is a bad guy terrorist. He's spoken to Person B - who we also know is a bad guy. But Person B is in the US and he's spoken to Person C, who is a US citizen and is in the US. And we don't know if Person C is a bad guy. I have no problem finding our more about Person C and seeing if Person C has spoken to other people we know are bad guys.

Get a warrant.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I remember expressing concerns with my Dad about the Patriot Act and the expanded powers of NSA and the federal government. He wasn't as concerned because he thought GWB was trying to protect the country. I said I wasn't concerned about GWB abusing those new powers, but some future president/adminstration. I just didn't think those abuses would begin with the very next president/administration.

Bush was just as bad as Obama is. Bush's administration began all the warrantless surveillance. Both made themselves Kings. They are doing the same things King George did that inspired the revolution. Yet because of a pretended dichotomy in government people allow the usurpation of their freedoms.



Anyone who hasn't fought tooth and nail to shut down NDAA, the patriot act, and the NSA should be ashamed their inaction. So call your Utah representative now and put a stop to this now.

Exactly. If you know C is talking to B who is talking to A, then it shouldn't be that hard to get a warrant.



I don't know if he is as bad. He certainly moved that way as his presidency went on.



IMO, our two worst presidents have been our two most recent.

SpiffCoug wrote:



IMO, our two worst presidents have been our two most recent.

Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, FDR?

Yep. Our two worst. The nation survived those guys. Although FDR (along with TR and WW) laid the groundwork for the destruction of the country that GWB and BO have accelerated.

Don't forget Johnson and Clinton.

jvquarterback wrote:
So Marc Robert's (R- Santaquin) introduced legislation to keep anyone from aiding and abetting the NSA's facility.



http://benswann.com/breaking-utah-legislators-move-to-kill-nsa-data-center/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=nl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ironic that someone would propose an unconstitutional law targeting a preexisting contract (and that could be construed a bill of attainder as well) all because they're upset about a constitutional violation.

snoscythe wrote:

So Marc Robert's (R- Santaquin) introduced legislation to keep anyone from aiding and abetting the NSA's facility.



http://benswann.com/breaking-utah-legislators-move-to-kill-nsa-data-center/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=nl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ironic that someone would propose an unconstitutional law targeting a preexisting contract (and that could be construed a bill of attainder as well) all because they're upset about a constitutional violation.

You haven't read the Virginia or Kentucky resolutions lately I suppose?



Also the attainder claim is lame; no one is specifically identified and the law deals with current and future acts, not those in the past.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
So Marc Robert's (R- Santaquin) introduced legislation to keep anyone from aiding and abetting the NSA's facility.



http://benswann.com/breaking-utah-legislators-move-to-kill-nsa-data-center/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=nl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ironic that someone would propose an unconstitutional law targeting a preexisting contract (and that could be construed a bill of attainder as well) all because they're upset about a constitutional violation.

You haven't read the Virginia or Kentucky resolutions lately I suppose?



Also the attainder claim is lame; no one is specifically identified and the law deals with current and future acts, not those in the past.

Well, shucks, if zealots in Kentucky and Virginia are on board, who am I to doubt?

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

So Marc Robert's (R- Santaquin) introduced legislation to keep anyone from aiding and abetting the NSA's facility.



http://benswann.com/breaking-utah-legislators-move-to-kill-nsa-data-center/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=nl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ironic that someone would propose an unconstitutional law targeting a preexisting contract (and that could be construed a bill of attainder as well) all because they're upset about a constitutional violation.

You haven't read the Virginia or Kentucky resolutions lately I suppose?



Also the attainder claim is lame; no one is specifically identified and the law deals with current and future acts, not those in the past.

Well, shucks, if zealots in Kentucky and Virginia are on board, who am I to doubt?

You mean zealots like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, authors of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions? Really, the lack of knowledge about US history, not to mention the constitution, is astounding.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
So Marc Robert's (R- Santaquin) introduced legislation to keep anyone from aiding and abetting the NSA's facility.



http://benswann.com/breaking-utah-legislators-move-to-kill-nsa-data-center/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=nl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ironic that someone would propose an unconstitutional law targeting a preexisting contract (and that could be construed a bill of attainder as well) all because they're upset about a constitutional violation.

You haven't read the Virginia or Kentucky resolutions lately I suppose?



Also the attainder claim is lame; no one is specifically identified and the law deals with current and future acts, not those in the past.

Well, shucks, if zealots in Kentucky and Virginia are on board, who am I to doubt?

You mean zealots like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, authors of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions? Really, the lack of knowledge about US history, not to mention the constitution, is astounding.

When Jefferson and Madison are trying to alter the Constitution other than by amendment common law after their attempts at amendment fail, then yes, they are zealots, even George Washington disagreed, as did all but one other state at the time. The fact Jefferson and Madison were trying to amend the constitution to give the states this power would indicate that, without the amendment, the States don't have the authority to declare federal acts invalid?



The resolutions were nothing more than failed attempts to amend the constitution and never gained traction outside of those two states.....at least 10 states rejected it outright. And this just years after the Constitution was ratified.



If you're citing to failed constitutional amendments for authority, especially ones the other Founders, including Washington, rejected, maybe you don't understand how the Constitution works?



Your whole argument of the resolutions seems to be based on the idea that Jefferson and Madison are somehow paragons of virute when it comes to the Constitution. Lest you forget:



(1) it was Jefferson who paved the way for Bush and Obama today when he threw the Constitution out the window during the Chesapeake-Leopold affair, famously stating that

"[t]he laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation" that waiting for Congress to do what he wanted them to do.



(2) Madison was a zealot against the First United States Bank, arguing vociferously that a national bank was unconstitutional. However, once he became president, he re-upped the charter for the bank as he discovered it was necessary for our little spat with Britain.



So there you go---both Jefferson and Madison pulled an Obama when it suited their needs and ignored the Constitution when it was inconvenient. Or should we say Obama continues in the Jeffersonian/Madisonian tradition? Forgive me if I don't fall over myself to adhere to their failed attempt to amend the Constitution.

Yes I am talking about failed constitutional amendments - namely the 10th which has been ignored by every federalist since the beginning, including Washington and later Jefferson and Madison once they came into power.



Your argument is basically that everyone who gets power deprives others of their rights. True. That doesn't make their initial arguments in favor of freedom any less valid. Nor does it annul the tenth amendment.



Men are hypocrites. Every president has proved himself a hypocrite. I cite no paragon of virtue but a true reading of the constitution rather than the limitless monster of a government you adore. Nice try at changing the argument to an assassination of character rather than sticking to your initial failed argument about a bill of attainder.

No, I stand by my claim that what these folks in the Utah Legislature are doing is no more than a bill of attainder and an attempt to interfere with specific contracts. Both of which are expressly forbidden by the Constitution.



While the bill does not name the NSA, is there any doubt that is who it is specifically aimed at? You yourself identified it as aimed at the NSA. If Congress passes a law that doesn't name Donald Trump, but is drafted to apply to a class of individuals that encompasses only Donald Trump, is that any less a bill of attainder? It's a cute trick, but it's still a bill of attainder.



I just find it ironic that it seems to be those most vocal about the necessity of protecting the Constitution are now trying to make an end-run around it by disguising a bill of attainder and seeking to interfere with specific contracts in the process.



I also find it amusing that because I find this tactic hypocritical (those "supporting" the consitution actually subverting it) and unconstitutional, you claim I "adore" a "limitless monster of a government" when my point is that this bill is unconstitutional.



I agree that the NSA programs are in many, if not most, respects unconstitutional, but when you resort to unconstitutional means to remedy those programs, you lose the moral high ground and lend credence to the Obama/Bush/Jefferson/Madison claim that "desperate times call for desperate measures," and you commit the exact same violence to constitutional principles that you are trying to remedy.

Still not a bill of attainder (also the ex poste facto and contract clauses don't apply) because it only applies to current and future acts, not those in the past. The law isn't seizing the proceeds of the sale of water - it only prevents further sale of water or other material support of illegal searches.



The fact the NSA performs illegal searches and stores the data of those searches in Bluffdale doesn't mean the law targets the NSA, it only means the NSA performs illegal searches.



No what you are really arguing is that states (and individuals) have no standing to interpret or defend the constitution which is in clear opposition to the 10th amendment.

Is the fact that a law describes only Donald Trump at this moment in time okay with you, because in the future it might hypothetically apply to someone else?



The contract clause and ex post facto clauses would fail to apply only on the same authority that the right to an abortion is found in the penumbras of the constitution as well. Because it's the same type of "living document" interpretations that led to the evisceration of those three clauses to facilitate the New Deal reforms as the historic scope of those clauses interfered with the newly broadened "police power" of the state under the New Deal reading of the Constitution. If you stick with the pre-FDR 150 years of precedent, this is blatantly a violation of both the contract clause, ex post facto, AND the bill of attainder.



Despite your attempts to put words in my mouth, all I have been arguing is that those who want to fight the NSA need to make sure what they are doing is on the up-and-up with the Constitution instead of shredding it to save it. There are other means to redress this with so savaging the Constitution.

The law targets anyone for performing an illegal act in the future.



The state legislature is declaring it illegal to aid already illegal activity.



There is no difference between this law and a law that states it is illegal to shelter a murderer or rapist. The legislature doesn't convict or make retroactive penalties so attainder and ex poste facto don't apply. And your interpretation for the contract clause is so far from the founder's intent it's laughable. The contract clause is intended to prevent states from absolving themselves or individual citizens from previously accrued debts.



If you say a contract to provide services which are then declared illegal by the state legislature means that the state legislature can't pass that law you're saying state legislatures can't pass any laws at all. Even Alexander Hamilton would be ashamed of you and your interpretation.