Skip to content

Reid Preempts Paul, Slips Patriot Act in Small Business Bill

May 26, 2011
Kurt Nimmo

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has circumvented a call by the newly elected senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, to debate the Patriot Act.

In order to prevent a filibuster, Reid performed “some procedural gymnastics,” according toFox News, and slipped Patriot Act language into a House small business bill that is considered filibuster-proof.

In doing so, Reid has skirted objections to the bill led by Paul and has moved closer to extending the Patriot Act without debate. Democrats have applauded this effort to rush the extension into law without debate.

“The suggestion that the extension should be debated fueled considerable opposition, particularly from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D – CA), who insisted it would be a ‘huge mistake’ to debate the bill and might threaten national security,” writes Jason Ditz.

And now… the rest of the story. …..

One Comment leave one →
  1. Katherine Szot permalink
    May 26, 2011 4:01 pm

    All this “slipping and sliding” needs to stop. We The People need to tell Washington to Go To Hell, Michigan, because it did freeze over.

    Dishonesty and fraud to The People shows lack of integrity and needs to be voted out faster than they were voted in.

    2. Whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former. FEDERALIST PAPERS 78 HAMILTON.

    3. At common law even the Supreme Court can give just its opinion as to what the
    law should be. It is the common law jury that decides what the law will be.

    But in considering the question before us it must be borne in mind that there is no law of nations standing between the People of the United States and their Government, and interfering with their relation to each other. The powers of the government, and rights of the citizen under it, are positive and practical regulations plainly written down. The people of the United States have delegated to it certain enumerated powers, and forbidden it to exercise others. It has no power over the person and property of a citizen but what the citizens of the United States have granted. And no laws or usages of other nations, or master and slave, can enlarge the powers of the Government, or take from the citizens the rights they have reserved.
    DRED SCOTT V. SANFORD, 19 Howard (60 Us) 393, 451 (1856)

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule in making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, (U.S. Supreme Ct) 380 US 436(1966)

    “Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.” Smith v. U.S. 502 F 2d 512 CA Tex(1974)

    Marbury v. Madison had a unanimous vote on February 24, 1803, and still stands as good law today. It states:

    “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void, courts are bound
    by this…”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: