If the linked PDF is actually the text of the bill then it does nothing. Searching, it will be argued, is the active analysis of collected phone calls/internet logs still currently illegal without a warrant. The passive archiving will be unaffected.
Paul, I'd assume -though that assumption in turn assumes he's smart enough to tie his own shoes- knows or was told this already.
It actually seems a bit roundabout to me. He's proposing that Congress pass a rule of construction for the courts to interpret, in hopes that this will indirectly result in the offending statute being struck down or constrained. But a more direct route would be: propose repealing or amending the FISA authorizing statute.
That would also be more in line with Congress's constitutional duties. It's true that the courts should enforce a robust 4th amendment. But Congress does not need to force them to do so: it could simply not pass laws that violate the 4th amendment, or if it realizes it has done so, it can repeal those laws.
Comments
Also, you may want to support this new bill that will be introduced by Sen. Paul, tomorrow (call your senator to vote for it, etc):
http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/06/rand-paul-to-introduce-fou...
If the linked PDF is actually the text of the bill then it does nothing. Searching, it will be argued, is the active analysis of collected phone calls/internet logs still currently illegal without a warrant. The passive archiving will be unaffected.
Paul, I'd assume -though that assumption in turn assumes he's smart enough to tie his own shoes- knows or was told this already.
So... PR stunt?
Total dick move too trying to corner the issue while it's hot without consulting with Wyden and Udall who've been working on this for years.
His entire career is a PR stunt. That doesn't mean it isn't meaningful.
http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/4thAmdtRestoratio...
One page, straight to the point. Nice.
It actually seems a bit roundabout to me. He's proposing that Congress pass a rule of construction for the courts to interpret, in hopes that this will indirectly result in the offending statute being struck down or constrained. But a more direct route would be: propose repealing or amending the FISA authorizing statute.
That would also be more in line with Congress's constitutional duties. It's true that the courts should enforce a robust 4th amendment. But Congress does not need to force them to do so: it could simply not pass laws that violate the 4th amendment, or if it realizes it has done so, it can repeal those laws.
Actually, it isn't. Ambiguity in existing laws is exactly what has allowed the NSA to do what they've been doing.