I am sick of being told that I should just stop complaining and support Obama, because at this point there are no other alternatives.

Well, buckos, up until very recently there was another alternative, unfortunately she got hounded out of the race by race-baiters and misogynists and "progressives."

Obama supporters who bemoan the lack of choice at this point in the game have only themselves to thank for that.

Anyone who opposed Clinton on the sole grounds that she voted to authorize the war in Iraq and does not see that Obama has just done her one better by voting in favor of a law that clearly violates the constitution is a fool. Once more, with feeling: I told you so! It isn't that anyone thought Obama would do something quite this outrageous once he was nominee/candidate/president. But everyone was trying to warn Obama maniacs that he was just another selfish, calculating politician, and yet we were smacked down as racists or party dividers. I'm not just talking about Clinton supporters here. There were a lot of people who didn't want to give her their support but still questioned Obama's character. Now, unfortunately, the joy of being able to say "I told you so" is sadly outweighed by the injury of having to suffer this man as 'my' presidential candidate and potentially president.

As a question of law that some more knowledgeable letter-writers might be able to answer: Wouldn't the ACLU need someone to represent if they are to challenge this law? Don't they need a plaintiff whose constitutional rights have been violated? I wasn't under the impression that laws could be challenged directly in court.

“Obviously, the president committed an illegal act.” That illegal act is defined as a felony, a crime under federal law. "...the president committed a felony, not once, but at least 30 times."

Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor, July 8, 2008

1. Existence of inherent fraud.

37 American Jurisprudence 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutioinality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Comments??

What gives?

...smells like, capitulation.

I'm off to send a check to renew my membership.

It was nauseating to watch, but now we can launch new lawsuits challenging the new "law".

Glenn, you were right... Rockefeller was there and got a big smile and handshake from the Chimperor.

Doesn't the Constitution speak to the issue of ex post facto laws - in other words, by retroactively legalizing illegal activities, does the bill passed by the Senate by its very nature violate a critical portion of the Constitution?

Read Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 386 386 (1798). The Supreme Court ruled over 200 years ago that ex post facto applies only to criminal laws and punishment, not to civil cases. At best, HR 6304 is constructive condonation of lawbreaking.

However, Calder v. Bull addresses an aspect of HR 6304 that is likely unconstitutional. According to Justice Chase in Calder v. Bull:

A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or in other words for an act which when done was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys or impairs the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause, or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B. It is against all reason and justice for a people to entrust a legislature with such powers, and therefore it cannot be presumed that it has done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit of our state governments amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation, and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; It may declare new crimes and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; it may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong, but it cannot change innocence into guilt or punish innocence as a crime or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract or the right of private property. To maintain that our federal or state legislature possesses such powers if it had not been expressly restrained would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.

I think it quite likely that there may be something in the bolded parts of this precedent that could be used to consider HR 6304 unconstitutional. This, however, is complicated by the fact that HR 6304 does not grant immunity from civil suits directly. I haven't read the suits against the telecoms but I would hope that they invoke the fact that the telecoms have contracted with their subscribers not to reveal the contents of their subscribers' communications except as required by and in compliance with law. Had the bill simply summarily dismissed the suits against the telecoms, I think it clearly would have violated the constitutional prohibition against "law impairing the obligation of contracts". Since the bill only directs the dismissal of the suits if the telecoms can show that they were operating "under color of law" without any actual determination of whether that operation was in fact lawful or not, the issue is not so clear-cut.