ArchiveArchive
congress

We need constitutionally mandated term limits for Congress

Shortly after Donald Trump became the president-elect of the United States, the phrase “drain the swamp” became a common statement. With such an unconventional candidate winning the hearts of the people to the point where they selected him to be the leader of the free world, many people were left hopeful that a lot of changes would be made in Congress and with the entire political system.

“Draining the swamp” meant getting rid of the politicians that had held office for far too long – the people who had gotten way too comfortable in their positions and were no longer behaving in behalf of America’s best interests. It is no longer a healthy relationship to be in. Things need to change desperately in many respects, but enabling term limits is definitely one of the most important.

David A. Lieb of the Associated Press reports, “During the past three years, eight states have passed resolutions calling for a convention that would go beyond a balanced budget amendment to include other fiscal restraints, term limits for Congress and federal officials, and unspecified restrictions on federal power. Though still far from the two-thirds threshold, supporters of those causes believe the Republican rise to power could help their movement grow rapidly.”

It’s unfortunate that the political system has the ability to infect people in a way that seems to suck all the integrity out of them, but that is historically what it appears to do. Politicians that take office become more concerned with being reelected than actually working on behalf of the American people. This becomes a major problem, because they then morph into career politicians who spend their entire lives in Congress.

With all of the new changes that are coming to the United States, there is no better time than now for term limits for everyone in Congress to come into play. Donald Trump has hinted that this is one of his goals as president, but this is one that is easier said than done. Should he not make an executive decision to enact term limits, this would be extremely difficult to pass through Congress. After all, the people voting on this would be the ones directly effected by it – and would almost definitely say no.

We should all be hopeful for change, but we definitely need to demand such change as well. It is time to drain the swamp – once and for all.

Sources:

Hosted.AP.org

TimesUnion.com

Courier-Journal.com

hacker

New law allows government access to hack individual’s computers and phones

A vital Supreme Court order was set to go into effect on Thursday December 1st, which dramatically expands the surveillance power of federal agents. It’s an alteration to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which softens the legal requirements necessary to obtain a search and seizure warrant. This grants the government remote access to individual’s computers and phones.

Previously, law enforcement needed to obtain a warrant from a judge located in the jurisdiction where the proposed search was scheduled to take place. Now, a warrant is considered valid regardless of jurisdiction if an individual uses technology to conceal their location. A lone authorization now has the potential to validate millions of searches on private devices.

The rule change was sought by the Justice Department, adopted by the US federal Courts, and approved by the Supreme Court on April 28th. These changes have been expedited in response to FBI evidence that was deemed inadmissible in a recent child pornography case. The DOJ and FBI refused to disclose how they legally obtained that evidence.

The FBI recently set up a sting known as Operation Pacifier, which used Playpen’s servers to set up a sting against users of the pedophilia porn site. The agency claims that its ability to lock up the scum of society was limited, which also helped to fast track the new rules implementation.

The modification of Rule 41 has been deemed crucial for preventing crime, although its implementation grants sweeping authority to the State. Changes with broad implications are typically debated in Congress. Since this was considered a small procedural change, the discussion was held rather by the small US Courts Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure following the DOJ’s request to modify the rule. The Supreme Court approved the alteration.

There was a great lack of publicity regarding the effort to change the rule. This shows a deliberate effort to conceal the scheme’s potential consequences. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been insistent on maintaining the old rule and has voiced some concerns regarding the amended version. “The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure set the ground rules for federal criminal prosecutions. The rules cover everything from correcting clerical errors in a judgment to which holidays a court will be closed on—all the day-to-day procedural details that come with running a judicial system. The key word here is ‘procedural.’  By law, the rules and proposals are supposed to be procedural and must not change substantive rights. But the amendment to Rule 41 isn’t procedural at all. It creates new avenues for government hacking that were never approved by Congress.”

Sources:

TheDailySheeple.com

ExtremeTech.com

 

Censorship-Computer-Handcuffs-Freedom-Internet

Tech groups urging Congress to sue Obama admin to block giving control of Internet to authoritarian regimes

An alliance of technology organizations and conservatives are urging Congress to file suit against the Obama administration to block the transference of control over Internet domain names to an international board. The alliance claims that doing so will give authoritarian regimes power to decide who can and cannot have a presence on the web, Fox News reported Saturday.

Since 1998, a division of the U.S. Commerce Department called the National Telecommunications Information Administration, or NTIA, has issued domain names. But in September the Obama administration is set to allow the U.S. government’s contract to lapse so that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will then be operated by a global board of directors, and the responsibility will fall to it instead.

Critics of the administration’s decision fear that it will allow Russia, China and Iran to then have a stake in governing the Internet, giving them “de facto” power to tax domain names and quash free speech.

Twice Congress has included riders in appropriations legislation to expressly prohibit U.S. tax dollars from being spent on the transition, which President Obama has signed into law. So, if the White House goes forward and allows the contract to lapse next month it would be yet another potentially unconstitutional action by this president.

And that is what the coalition of tech groups fully expects, which is why it is pressing House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., and other congressional leaders to support a lawsuit similar to action the House took against the administration regarding unauthorized spending on Obamacare in 2014.

“Suing to enforce the appropriations rider and extending it through FY2017 are amply justified by the extraordinary importance of the constitutional principle at stake,” the coalition letter says.

In addition, the letter states that the administration has not guaranteed the United States will maintain ownership of the domain names .mil or .gov, for military and government websites respectively.

“Without robust safeguards, Internet governance could fall under the sway of governments hostile to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment,” the letter says. “Ominously, governments will gain a formal voting role in ICANN for the first time when the new bylaws are implemented.”

What’s more, there is concern that ICANN is no longer an impartial entity. The letter noted that the organization has already transformed from a technical coordination agency established in 1998 to something more resembling an actual governing body, in that it now has de facto authority to apply a tax to some domain names. It added that there are a number of reasons to be concerned about what ICANN may do with that power next if the incentive for self-restraint created by the contract it has with the U.S. is removed.

The groups contend that the administration would be in violation of the law if it moves forward with the transition. But officials with the NTIA say that’s not the case.

NTIA spokeswoman Juliana Grunewald told Fox News in an interview that current laws prohibit the agency from utilizing taxpayer funds to “relinquish the responsibility” over the Internet in the current 2016 fiscal year. This is due to the way that it pertains to Internet domain name functions. But, she noted further, the law does not ban NTIA from analyzing transition proposals or undertaking additional activities in preparation for a transition. Grunewald said that, in fact, Congress has directed her agency to make a thorough examination of any transition plan that may be proposed, and to then provide lawmakers with updates on said transition every quarter, “which we have done.”

That said, the coalition of groups obviously believes that the Obama administration has already made its decision and will pursue handing over control of the Internet anyway it can. Once control is gone, the U.S. will likely never get it back.

Sources:

FoxNews.com

TechFreedom.org