NEWS: The Imperial Senate has agreed to end debate and hold a vote on a really awful version of the original “USA Freedom Act.” The bill not only doesn’t stop the NSA, it in some ways makes things worse. This is a bill that major privacy organizations and grassroots activists put major amounts of time,…Details
Although in the Federalist Papers James Madison urged ratification of the U.S. constitution, he was also concerned about things it left undone. He thought that many of his contemporaries were too focused on the threats posed by the executive branch, which he thought understandable given the fact that they had just fought a revolutionary war against…Details
It looks like a recent study has confirmed something that the Tenth Amendment Center has said for a long time – calling Congress does the average person no good. According to The Hill, two political scientists recently found that, “when controlling for the power of economic elites and organized interest groups, the influence of ordinary Americans registers at a ‘non-significant, near-zero level.'”Details
While there are indications that there are some positive provisions in the latest incarnation of the USA Freedom Act, it certainly wouldn’t end unconstitutional spying. There are also some troubling issues that make the proposed fixes potentially dangerous. Some analysts think the new version may have a massive loophole – something that even give supporters of the bill pause.Details
Just when you thought it was safe to get back on the Internet.
Tuesday, the Senate Select Committee passed the Cyber Information Security Act (CISA) by a vote of 12-3. This clears another hurdle in the path toward consideration by the body of the Senate.Details
Congressional efforts to fortify dragnet domestic surveillance advanced last week when a Senate committee approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISA).Details
I can accept, as an original matter, the general proposition that the “Case or Controversy” language means at minimum that everyone can’t sue everyone for everything. How modern standing law derives its particular intricacies from this basic proposition is a mystery to me. But that doesn’t matter in this case, which seems fundamentally about an abstract injury common to everyone.Details