• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Amendment to restrict NSA Surveillance defeated

Major

4 legs good 2 legs bad
V.I.P.
Narrow defeat for Amash amendment to restrict NSA surveillance | World news | The Guardian

The amendment was voted on in the House today and was defeated by just a 217-205 margin. On one hand, I find this disappointing because I would have liked to see this get passed and surveillance be restricted. On the other hand though, it somewhat encouraging that there seems to be growing discontent in Congress over these surveillance programs. Maybe there is hope after all. But I won't hold my breath.
 

Doc

Trust me, I'm The Doctor.
V.I.P.
The amendment was voted on in the House today and was defeated by just a 217-205 margin. On one hand, I find this disappointing because I would have liked to see this get passed and surveillance be restricted. On the other hand though, it somewhat encouraging that there seems to be growing discontent in Congress over these surveillance programs. Maybe there is hope after all. But I won't hold my breath.
A lot of the time it's the smaller provisions of the amendments that cause Congressmen to vote against it. It is very encouraging that it is nearly a dead heat to limit the power of the NSA and surveillance. Hopefully the American people can get their act together and try to sway their local Congressmen's votes. Of course the amendment could always die in the House. That's where good laws go to die.
 

dDave

Well-Known Member
V.I.P.
The house balances like this.

Republican - 234
Democrat - 201

6 of those members are non-voting but still have a voice on the floor. (why that is, I have no idea).

What concerns me is that we should have had 429 votes cast and there were only 422 votes cast. Do 7 members of congress really feel as if they don't need to take a side on this?

It is encouraging that it's getting more and more attention in congress, not encouraging at all that it was actually shot down though. The surveillance programs that we've been seeing are some of the most blatant violations of the Constitution in history and yet the majority of Congress does not seem to care.

Something is very wrong here.
 

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
I was sad to hear it didn't pass. One thing that I found encouraging was the fact it wasn't a division along party lines. There was people on both sides for and against the amendment.

Even though it didn't pass I think it sends a clear message that spying on people for no reason isn't acceptable.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Something is very wrong here.
It began with 9/11 and at this rate, it will end with riots. The government was very good at convincing people to turn in their freedoms in exchange for a tiny bit of supposed 'security'. People love to make noise about the amendments but seem to constantly ignore the 4th, especially with the Patriot Act, something I was very disappointed to see Obama strengthen since he said he would weaken it. But then again, these were the words of a politician so yet again we are shown that regardless of party affiliation, politicians are basically on the same page about a lot of things including the privacy of Americans. They do not trust you, they want to be able to watch and listen to you whenever they want.

It's truly depressing that it has take 12 years and a whistleblower to convince more of the public how disgusting the US is when it comes to invasions of privacy.
 

Van

Heavy Weapons Guy
V.I.P.
So they were attempting to pass an amendment to ban something that an honest federal court would already deem unconstitutional? Our government seems to do whatever it wants anyway regardless of the law.

Even though it didn't pass I think it sends a clear message that spying on people for no reason isn't acceptable.
Doesn't it in fact send the opposite message though? It means the majority of the elected representatives in this country believe it IS okay or they wouldn't have voted the way they did.
 
Top