Printer Friendly

Congress, listen in on this.

In the January 21 issue of THE NEW AMERICAN, the next-to-last paragraph of the article "Bill to Extend FISA Surveillance Powers Stalls in Senate" says, "The chief point of dispute in the bill--the telecom immunity provision--grants immunity to telecommunications companies that complied with administration requests to supply phone numbers of suspects without going through the traditional, constitutionally mandated warrant process."

Please notice that "complied" is past tense, thus such legislation is unconstitutional because it is an "ex post facto law"--it is a law having retroactive effect. According to Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed"--Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (Cranch) 174, 176 (1803).

FRANK B. TURBERVILLE, JR.

Milton, North Carolina
COPYRIGHT 2008 American Opinion Publishing, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Author:Turberville, Frank B., Jr.
Publication:The New American
Article Type:Letter to the editor
Date:Mar 17, 2008
Words:128
Previous Article:Unasked questions deserve answers.
Next Article:Tax rebate or tax penalty?


Related Articles
Kids count in Congress.
President assumes power to sign away laws.
Off the record.
Research needed.
LETTERS IN THE EDITOR'S MAILBAG.
Immigration fix can't wait.
LETTERS IN THE EDITOR'S MAILBAG.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters