Obedient or Overzealous?

About a week ago, I woke up to a dispute raging right outside my back porch. My landlord and a gentleman who later came to represent himself as an employee of the federal government from the Census Bureau, were locked on a hot debate over whether the agent of the federal government had a right to access a person in our building, with the full acquiescence of my landlord. The census agent snuck in the side door and came up the back stairs to try to access this young woman's apartment. As a result, this little dispute took place well within earshot, earlier than I typically like to stir on Sunday mornings. I decided to mediate, in an attempt to put an end to such a rude awakening, but also to get some peace and quiet so I could squeeze another hour of sleep out of my morning. The discussion that followed raised some interesting points.

As a preface to the following, I will note that it is, in fact, illegal to refuse to answer census questions. Section 13 of the United States Code controls, at the basic constitutional level, the operation of the Census Bureau. Interestingly, the Census agent was demanding access to the resident in the apartment he was pursuing. While I understand that there are penalties for failing to participate in a census inquiry, this person was not only sneaking into an area of my building only residents have access to, when he was discovered he demanded access to the common area inside the building and to some degree demanded access to the apartment where the resident lived. All of these demands were made under the auspice of federal law. Interestingly, the previously cited code section fails to provide this right in any explicit or implicit manner. My sense is that some obscure corner of the code of federal regulations contains this language creating this "right of access."

In a basic sense, this right of access likely does not exist, at least to the extent that this gentleman claimed. The Constitution still presents an inherent barrier to this kind of inquisition. He appeared to not only demand access to the common areas of my apartment building but also to the resident's apartment. That, on its own, is repugnant. To think a federal agent can have a right to access a person that any other state actor fundamentally lacks is downright comical. While I will submit it is likely possible that this person has an "right" created by an administrative rule to obtain access to the common areas in my building, there is no law capable of amending the Constitution by legislative or administrative fiat the way he represented. When I pointed out this error, he became angry, making claims that he would get lawyers to write letters. My response was to send federal agents with a warrant issued by a federal judge to justify the access he was requesting. This comment basically ended the exchange, because at this point he started to figure out that he was dealing with a lawyer.

Ultimately, the argument ended with an agreement that he would have a government lawyer send a letter to my property owner explaining this right of access. At this point, my property owner would give my landlord permission to let the guy into the common area of the building so that he can knock on this resident's door. In the event that she isn't home, he is out of luck entirely.

This entire situation raises some interesting questions about what kind of power the government thinks it has. I can tell anyone I have a legal right to do something, but that doesn't mean my statement is supported by law. It is more likely than not that this rhetoric works on the unassuming American. Does this mean we don't ask enough questions of those representing governmental authority? If anything, it shows we shouldn't be so quick to give in when someone with an official name badge starts talking about the law. The need to question everything a government official says these days is omnipresent, especially if we have Presidential Candidates would ask their lawyers for legal permission to start a war before asking Congress.

Happy 300!

I guess you can call it a milestone. This is the 300th post in The Grey Area. Since its birth, I have tried to make this site a place for discourse on compelling issues facing people, regardless of who they are or where they come from. While I focus on what goes on in the United States, I am pleased to know that traffic to this site, be it legitimate or not, comes from all over the globe. 300 doesn't seem like much of a post count in the vibrantly active blog-sphere, but this is something of a personal milestone since I certainly didn't expect to get here.

From here on, though, I hope to double this number in the near future. Thanks for reading, feel free to participate and make this a dialogue. Cheers!

Bit of a Hiatus...

For those regular readers, I want to apologize for my extended hiatus. While I wish I could relay a story about how I have spent the last month and a half in a rendition prison, being held captive by the CIA for the regular words of rebuke towards the goverment that flow from these pages, the reality is far more uninteresting. I am in the process of making a transition in employment so that I can open my own law practice. You can find us on the web at RajSmithLaw.com. The website is in its infancy, and will be up and running with more content in the near future. As for the Grey Area, I hope to return to something of a regular blogging schedule after my employment transition in the next couple of weeks.

Hello Mr. Orwell...

Everyone jokes about it, but the reality is far worse than we might expect. Daily Kos had an interesting article today that demonstrates WE are the next target of the American government. While I am inclined to question the veracity of this program, I wouldn't put it past the American government under the so-called leadership of this President.

It reminds me of a couple of quotes:

...a government is a living organism. Like every living thing its prime characteristic is the instinct to survive.

And:

Power is not static; it cannot be frozen and preserved like food; it must grow or die.

The existence of this "program" shows exactly how far we have strayed from those core American ideals that supported the birth of this nation. I have called for revolution in the past, but these kinds of governmental actions proves that we no longer live in the free society envisioned by our forefahters. Revolution, regardless of the form, may be our only salvation to prevent the continued perversion of the Constitution.

Business? Why Business?

Disclaimer: I am only an armchair economist, this is purely my own opinion.

As the title suggests, this post won't necessarily touch recent issues, like the departure of Bush administration zealots like Alberto Gonzalez and Karl Rove. Instead, the purpose of this post is something far more important: The American Economy. The economy is so important because it literally determines the future of every American, and to some degree, every person in the world.

Recently, we watched the fall out over the sub-prime mortgage market plague the U.S. economy and the larger economies in Europe and Asia. Essentially, sub-prime exponentially expanded the availability of credit to those who couldn't otherwise afford the loans provided to them. This was largely driven by the inflation in real estate prices, and the low interest rates of 2004 and 2005. Arguably, real estate is one of the few American commodities that tracks real value juxtaposed currency value. The other commodity is Gold. If you look at both of these commodities next to one another, I imagine you will see a similar appreciation over the last five years. Arguably, this increase in value is due largely to inflation. As our debt load has increased, the value of the dollar as decreased. This isn't due entirely to the value of sub-prime, but also to the federal deficit. When we create debt, we create more money, even if that liquidity is a fiction created by increased debt.

Sub-prime started to show its weakness when the two year limit on many of these inexpensive loans came due. The net result was a substantial increase in foreclosures. To understand the next step, it is important to understand how investments in commercial paper, essentially the trade of debt. Banks buy and sell loans based on the interest rates, and the amount they can collect over the principal. When the debt is bought and sold, but goes into default, those investments are essentially worthless, absent the value of the collateral. The result is a mad rush to collect on worthless debt, and the acceleration of payments up the chain of debt, from one bank to another, until you reach the bank holding the note on the collateral. Unfortunately, the substantial increase in foreclosure has devalued collateral because of an increased supply.

The catalyst for this chain reaction came from an increase in interest rates. Those sub-prime loans became more expensive, and the borrowers were no longer able to pay. The purpose of that increase in interest rates is attributable to one thing...Inflation.

The purpose of this diatribe...an explanation of why the Federal Reserve should not lower the short term interest rate at its meeting in about a week and a half. Generally, a decrease in the rate will push the economy back to the previous cycle and not fix the core problem of inflation. If anything, rates should remain the same, and this market correction should be allowed to proceed. While there will be a substantial decline in large purchases, like automobiles and property purchases with more risk, this correction will hopefully balance the credit market and heal some of the damage caused by unchecked inflation in the last couple of years. While this won't necessarily result in a more valuable dollar, it should provide some stability for the volatile market.

Solving inflation, though, is an entirely different issue that is dependent on the ability of the government to balance their budget and create a sustainable financial system. For more on interesting economic issues outside of recent financial news, check out this scary video.

More on Rove and Gonzalez in the future, I promise.

The Real Reason FISA Supposedly Needs Updates...

In the history of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which really isn't designed to track terrorists, the FISA Courts took an active role in determining whether cause existed to issue orders to permit American intelligence agencies to tap wire communications. Then, for reasons we can only presume to be based on what the law actually says, the FISA Courts rejected a significant number of wire tap requests from the various intelligence agencies. As a result, the President authorized the warrantless wiretaps program, later to become known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP. Recently, I have covered the development of proposed changes to FISA that would expand the President's power to watch anyone he wants, including American citizens, without having to muck about in the legal process put in place to protect us from abusive intelligence practices. What is more shocking is the reason for the change.

This story does a good job of explaining the current situation. Like in 2001, a FISA Judge has determined that the TSP violates the law, and did what it was supposed to by issuing a stop order to the intelligence agencies involved in the practice. The effect of this ruling included the President asking Congress to change the law. Regardless of the situation, the President can't avoid his oath to enforce the Constitution, which includes the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for spying on Americans. This policy to violate the Constitution notwithstanding his oath of office should be sufficient grounds for Congress to institute impeachment proceedings. Now I have only one question...

Why is Congress letting this happen?

For the branch of government with the most power and oversight ability, this spineless caving to the President's malice towards the American people and the Constitution demonstrates a weakness that runs contrary to the interests of the American electorate. If constituents really knew what was going on, there would likely be an entire turn over in Congressional representatives. Maybe new representation is what we really need, lest Congress continue to vitiate court orders aimed at restricting the President's abuses of power not rightfully his under the Constitution.

So Long, Fourth Amendment...

As a follow up to my previous post, it appears as though the Congress, like the President, is more interested in disregarding the Constitution. This story explains what is going on. By the way, all of this domestic surveillance has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, it is to watch the American people. It sounds like it is time for a Hobbesian revolt, and replace everyone currently misrepresenting the interests of the American people in our government.

My Letter to Illinois Congressional Representatives on Modernizing FISA

The following is a copy of the letter I have submitted to both Illinois Senators, and Representative Jan Schakowsky of the Ninth District in Illinois in the House of Representatives. I am writing my Congressional representatives regarding the proposed updates to FISA. The letter follows.

As a young litigation attorney and constitutional scholar, I must implore you to prevent the passage of laws that would expand the President's power to spy on American citizens. Doing so would fundamentally debase the principles of privacy imbued in the Bill of Rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments.

While the President appears noble in his cause, protecting Americans from Terrorism should not be a justification for eroding the protections that continue to separate American liberties from the rest of the world. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause in order for the government to collect information on its citizens. This protection prevents government abuses by requiring process before a judge before permitting the government to violate the sanctity of one's home. The Fourth Amendment secures the notion of American individualism and autonomy. To denigrate the protections of the Constitution would serve only to make us less American by lending to more government oversight. Moreover, these evils were the express cause of creating a limited American governmental structure, which tied the hands of our leaders from invading the lives of those subject to the social contract.

Furthermore, the argument that this is necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks serves to abuse the baseless rhetoric of fear perpetuated by a President who has continuously disregarded his oath of office and acted out of irreverence for the people he was elected to serve. To date, the President can not point to empirical proof that more spying is necessary to make the United States more secure from foreign attack. The reason the President is asking for a review of FISA is because the law is operating to restrict the constitutional abuses the President wishes to propagate.

FISA originally came from Congress's reaction to Nixon era scandals. Similarly, the War Powers Act served to provide more balance between the President and Congress when both wish to exercise their constitutionally created war powers. Amending FISA to allow more latitude for Executive "intelligence" programs will fundamentally debase the balance between the three branches of government outlined in the Constitution and supported by FISA and the War Powers Act.

Congresswoman/man, I ask you, as an American, not to support a change in the law that will destroy the ideology that gave birth to this great nation. I ask you to oppose the expansion of executive power that will operate only to restrict our liberty and erode the freedoms the American Union stands for. I ask you not to fall into the traps of rhetoric used by the President, and to work towards policy that not only protects us from terrorists, but preserves the protections from the government the Constitution provides for the people.

Bush, and the New Executive Order...

This made most of the politically focused news reports on Friday. To be clear, this particular order permits the CIA to interrogate terrorist suspects in secret. Effectively, the order brings back the practice of extraordinary rendition from its hiatus. The President has the ability to do this because of a law Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which permits the President to interpret international law. I can't really express my disappointment in this development, so I will leave you with Marty Lederman's analysis of this issue.

Welcome back, cold war

This story came up in the New York Times today, and should really start to raise concerns over President Bush's foreign policy. While the "missile shield" isn't necessarily a bad idea, bringing back the cold war is certainly not a great idea. While this is likely little more than political posturing, it could also open up the possibility of Russia selling nuclear technology to nations like Iran, Syria, and North Korea. While not something that should cause an immediate and reactive response, at the very least this is something to keep an eye on.