Call your Senator NOW and support Sen Dodd's fight to save the Constitution

Congress is poised to pass the new FISA wiretapping bill, granting immunity to the companies that helped the President and the NSA shred the Constitution while illegally, warrantlessly wiretapping the nation's phones and Internet traffic. You can stop it.

Rich sez, "Senator Dodd is waging a magnificent fight against the destruction of the Constitution; but he could use support. The link gives the names and phone numbers of senators who have either (a) stood with him previously (b) expressed support for him or (c) opposed telco amnesty. It includes two candidates for president. We need to make it clear to all of them that this is their chance to 'uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.' Right here, right now."

* Barbara Boxer: [phone]
* Sherrod Brown: [phone]
* Russ Feingold: [phone]
* Ted Kennedy: [phone]
* Bill Nelson: [phone]
* Ron Wyden: [phone]
* Joe Biden: [phone]
* Hillary Clinton: [phone]
* John Kerry: [phone]
* Bob Menendez: [phone]
* Barack Obama: [phone]
* Ben Cardin: [phone]
* Norm Coleman: [phone]
* Dick Durbin: [phone]

Link (Thanks, Rich!)

Update: Fred sez, "I've quickly setup a list on CommitteeCaller.com to help you call those Senators supporting Dodd's FISA filibuster. Go to CommiteeCaller.com and click 'Senators for Senator Dodd's FISA Filibuster' under 'Special Lists' to be automatically connected to every senator, for free, who is supporting Dodd's important strategy to prevent the telecoms from getting retroactive immunity."

[#1 posted by mdhatter , January 24, 2008 5:44 AM]

Investigation and disclosure are key.

I got in touch with my Senators. Thanks.

[#2 posted by Rotwang , January 24, 2008 6:23 AM]

It's a pity he was most likely giving that speech to an empty room - floor speeches are now strictly for the tv audience and for the Congressional Record...no actual debating (and by 'debating' I mean horse-trading)takes place outside of committee meetings.

[#3 posted by Kurt , January 24, 2008 6:24 AM]

Correction, Bob Menendez is 202.224.4744. (You have Kerry's number listed for him.)

[#4 posted by bitworksmusic , January 24, 2008 7:18 AM]

Thanks for running this.

[#5 posted by aLearnerRather , January 24, 2008 7:21 AM]

I called Sen. Durbin's office, and his staffer said the Senator does not support the filibuster, though he does oppose telecom immunity. Whatever that means. I also called Sen. Obama's office, and his guy told me Sen. Obama was trying to return to Washington, as he _does_ support the filibuster.

I called Sen. Clinton too, but her line was busy. I hope it was all of y'all!

[#6 posted by bshock , January 24, 2008 7:52 AM]

Unfortunately, my senator is John "Insane" McCain, currently running for Preznit of Amurrica. He doesn't really have time to worry about trivial things like the Constitution... not that he'd understand what that meant if actually confronted with the concept.

[#7 posted by Jeremy A , January 24, 2008 8:45 AM]

Four down by me (Cardin, Mikulski, Dodd, and Reid). How's everybody else doing?

[#8 posted by busydoingnothing , January 24, 2008 9:49 AM]

I've never called a Senator's office before. Who do you end up talking to, and what do you say exactly?

[#9 posted by brooksp , January 24, 2008 10:31 AM]

As a libertarian, I despise the warrantless wiretapping that went on. I'm fully convinced that they were unconstitutional.

However, I support the FISA bill: in no way would it "shred the constitution." The constitution itself simply protects us from government action. Statutes constrain private conduct which would infringe constitutional rights by providing for liability and remedies against private entities. It is the providence on Congress to provide or decline to provide remedies against private action. If Congress, as part of a duly democratic process, wants to give explicit immunity to the phone companies here, they may constitutionally do so.

All three branches of the federal government have a duty to uphold the constitution. The courts have a duty to strike down unconstitutional laws. Congress has a duty not to pass laws which it believes are unconstitutional. The executive branch has a duty to act in accordance with the constitution. If the executive branch willfully or ignorantly ignores the constitution, and enlists the help of private entities in doing so, the constitution does not demand that monetary remedies against those private entities be available. Congress can choose to foreclose the availability of damages here, and that's perfectly within their constitutional rights.

The remedies which the people have against this government misconduct and private complicity, which congress cannot take away, are the democratic process and a decision to not do business with those companies that helped the warrantless wiretap program. People can vote the executives responsible out of office (either directly or indirectly). People can get their phone service from a phone company that did not participate in the program, or from their local cable company. People can f=vote for legislators who would enact laws explicitly prohibiting and providing liability for this sort of conduct in the future.

Allowing liability for the warrantless wiretap program would not deter future misconduct any better than laws expressly prohibiting these programs in the future. Allowing liability would only accomplish two things. First, it would line the pockets of the trial lawyers who take multi-million dollar fees for representation in the inevitable lawsuits (while everyday citizens affected by the warrantless wiretaps would likely receive $10 long distance credits or some equally worthless settlement "prize.") Second, it would deter private cooperation with future secret government programs which actually are constitutional, hampering the government's efforts to protect us.

The warrantless wiretaps may well have been unconstitutional (I believe they were), but giving the phone companies immunity is not in any way unconstitutional. It does not shred the constitution. It's democracy in action; the constitution working as intended, and a sensible policy decision.

Saying that this bill would "shred the constitution" is reactionary nonsense.

[#10 posted by Pyros , January 24, 2008 11:55 AM]

we need to get rid of the constitution because it represents a distrust of democratic ideas. It is an immovable body of laws designed to stand in place of human will. Our constitution cannot save us. We must learn to do this for ourselves.

[#11 posted by Raj77 , January 24, 2008 12:06 PM]

BrookSP- I'm not a fan of libertarian politics, but surely giving the federal government *more* oversight and control over your private business would be a bad thing? Or are you the sort of libertarian who likes corporate freedoms, but not personal freedoms?

[#12 posted by Jeremy A , January 24, 2008 12:39 PM]

@ BusyDoingNothing

It was my first time and it was a little awkward. Luckily they were very gentle with me.

I got sent to Mikulski's answering machine, but the people who answered at the other offices sounded like interns of some kind. I just said that I support Senator Dodd and his filibuster and I hope the senator that they worked for felt the same way. They all told me they would pass the message along. None of them were particularly talkative.

[#13 posted by noen , January 24, 2008 1:07 PM]

These Democratic Senators voted to defeat the bill. Let them know, politely, how disappointed you are in their failure to protect your civil liberties.

Rockefeller, Bayh, Mikulski, Pryor, Salazar, McCaskill, Nelson (FL), Carper, Nelson (NE), Landrieu, Inouye, Johnson

These are the 12 senators who have voted to support Dodd and Feingold last December. Let them know how much their support was appreciated and encourage their continuing support.

name
phone
fax

Akaka
[phone]
[phone]

Biden
[phone]
[phone]

Boxer
[phone]
[phone]

Brown
[phone]
[phone]

Cardin
[phone]
[phone]

Clinton
[phone]
[phone]

Harkin
[phone]
[phone]

Kennedy
[phone]
[phone]

Menendez
[phone]
[phone]

Obama
[phone]
[phone]

Sanders
[phone]
[phone]

Webb
[phone]
[phone]

US Senate Roll Call

[#14 posted by hoffmanbike , January 24, 2008 1:56 PM]

i called kerry (one of my senators) and he's not taking a stance on the subject, he may have just lost my vote. kennedy stands by chris dodd in opposing the immunity.

[#15 posted by ablestmage , January 24, 2008 4:37 PM]

How exactly is this unconstitutional? And I mean exactly.. what amendment does this breach? What clause applies here? Or is unconstitutional just a buzzword naysayers use when crying wolf?

[#16 posted by Antinous , January 24, 2008 4:47 PM]

Illegal search

[#17 posted by zuzu , January 24, 2008 5:44 PM]

If Congress, as part of a duly democratic process, wants to give explicit immunity to the phone companies here, they may constitutionally do so.

Damn, I learned a lesson today. I had thought that private bills were unconstitutional per Article I: Section 9 (Limits on Congress) like bills of attainder or like direct tax. Turns out that Congress can pass laws that only affect a specifically named person or corporation, and not just behaviors/actions.

Second, it would deter private cooperation with future secret government programs which actually are constitutional, hampering the government's efforts to protect us.

I think you meant to say, "hampering the government's efforts to subjugate us."

[#18 posted by brooksp , January 24, 2008 6:01 PM]

ZUZU, do you even read the content behind the links you post or just go off of supposition and the way you think things should be? Here's the United States portion of the wikipedia article you linked:

In the United States, private bills were common between 1817 and 1971. Now federal agencies are able to deal with most of the issues that were previously dealt with under private bills as these agencies have been granted sufficient discretion by the United States Congress to deal with exceptions to the general legislative scheme of various laws. The kinds of private bills that are still introduced include grants of citizenship to individuals who are otherwise ineligible for normal visa processing; alleviation of tax liability; armed services decorations and veteran benefits.

So yeah, you thought private bills were unconstitutional, but you were wrong. A bill to grant immunity would in fact be constitutional.

[#19 posted by brooksp , January 24, 2008 6:03 PM]

Oh crap... I think I may have misinterpreted your sincere amazement as sarcasm.

My apologies if this is so.

[#20 posted by zuzu , January 24, 2008 6:38 PM]

Oh crap... I think I may have misinterpreted your sincere amazement as sarcasm.

I wouldn't characterize my newfound knowledge as "amazement"... more like disappointment. But I was not being sarcastic.

I still disagree with you and the FISA bill, because I believe it's a form of corporatism (which I consider antithetical to libertarianism), but you were quite correct to point out that Congressional amnesty for illegal wiretapping is not, in fact, unconstitutional.

All the more reason to support Senator Dodd and ensure Congress does not pass this bill into law.

[#21 posted by TwoShort , January 25, 2008 7:43 AM]

@half this thread:
It is the wiretapping that is unconstitutional. Nobody (in this boing boing post) is claiming the Bill is unconstitutional.

The problem with the Bill is not that it is unconstitutional, but rather that it is a stupid, short-sighted affront to the rule of law and the rights of the individual pursued for crass political ends.

Please desist telling people why the Congress is allowed to pass this law, and get on the phone to tell your senator why they shouldn't.