Patriot Act Extension (H.R. 514): Who Voted and How

We Know Who is Who

Here you go folks. Here is the voting record for all members of the House of Representatives on H.R. 514, the Patriot Act Extension.

Personally, everyone on this list who voted YEA voted AGAINST The Bill of Rights, The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence and all the other documents and ideas our Founding Fathers wrote to ensure we were a free people.

My rep, surprise...surprise, voted YEA.

Well, Mr. Congressman! You damn sure will not be getting my vote in the next election.

How did your rep vote? Will you support him/her in the coming election?

ETA : Cannot wait to see how the Senate chamber votes.

reply to post by Hessling


And after all the dog and pony show Rand Paul never even voted.
He should of voted Yes or No.

Atleast Nancy Pelosi had the balls Rand didn't and voted No!

Looks like my representative Mr. "Baby Killer" Neugabeur voted "yea". He will be getting a letter from me, and it wont be a friendly one. I am so disappointed with the turn our country has taken all in the name of "security."

The reasoning behind requiring a person by oath or affirmation, to seek a judge to issue warrants, which invade privacy and the very things the Bill of Rights protect, as the "RIGHT of a person to be secure in their persons and homes;" and is "no-sauce" for the goose or gander. But protects US, in more ways than one.

You see, when a law as the "Patriot Act," by-passes reasonable avenues to secure freedoms, which by right are guaranteed, in the Bill of Rights, it distorts the "living intent" and subverts people's rights. To with-hold the "secretive workings" of the act which allows investigations of people into personal records and effects in their own homes and person, surely flies-in-the-face of "good faith." And violates the public trust in a "Right," which is guaranteed.

The "propaganda" which promotes the "Patriot Act," as something keeping us all safe, not only injures countless millions, guaranteed of a "Right," is not only shameful, and another side-effect is the "Patriot Act" actually removes a person or persons participation in-keeping the country safe by civic involvement.

This "Act," steps-in and covertly infringes upon a "Right," guaranteed and goes even further to crumble the inalienable status given by God.

When politicians are able to enact laws designed to protect by limiting or removing altogether, no doubt should remain in a reasonable person's mind whether they have lost a fundamental right or not.

Do we work hard and follow the "equitable and honored rules and protocols" established as an inalienable "Right," by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or subscribe to propaganda and peer-pressure of being labeled "unpatriotic?"

When it all is brought into the light, everyone can plainly "see" that it stinks to high-heaven and should be removed and replaced or edited with sensible framing which preserves guaranteed rights; and I think a vast majority will agree with this stance.

The "Paranoid Patriot Act," must be looked-at and the offensive portions removed. It's "Our" Right, after-all, and as the light of it all comes into day, the acknowledgement of such inalienable rights negate anything to the contrary.

I have concluded that Congress (majority of them) do not represent the people's will or act in accordance to their wishes. I posit that paranoia exists in both parties, both Democrats and Republicans and consider myself belonging to neither; and even the Independent Party does not share the same views as I do. So the disenfranchised, as I, do not have a "voice" or "vote" since either can be as carelessly disregarded without any repercussions to the contrary.

When Congress is "elevated" above being "average citizens," who share common beliefs and reasonable attitudes and enjoys privileges unavailable to any citizen, as their premium-grouped healthcare and perks, those in Congress cease to be "like us" and become as "elitists," segregated from the common public.

The freedoms of speech and belief have become as frail versions of the intents of the founding fathers, to only appear to be fundamental, but instead are frail and pale-shelter to "guaranteed fundamental rights," guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. When people can be jailed and imprisoned without regard to any fundamental right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, is tantamount to slavery and equity in representation is deemed a total failure.


When the first link of the chain is forged, the first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. As wisdom and warning, the first time any man’s freedom is trodden-on, we’re all damaged.
You’d think we’ve come so far, torture of heretics, burning of witches, in all ancient history. Then, if we even blink an eye, suddenly it threatens to start all-over again; spreading fear in the name of righteousness.
- Jean Luc Picard

reply to post by JBA2848


Um.... that was the House voting record not the Senate.

2nd

It is a sad day in America. Osama is dead and there hasn't been an attack in over a decade. Why is this extension necessary? Plus the three parts that were expiring were completely ridiculous in not only their vagueness but in their overall purpose.

Of course all of the reps in my state voted Yea.

And no, my representative will NOT be getting my vote in the election. Even if it means not voting.

thirty-one out of forty of the freshman "tea party" candidates voted yes....Just another R in sheeps clothing

reply to post by Hessling


WOW, it seems we were straight up sold out.
At least we know which fat needs to be cut now.
I see Ron Paul voted Nay, good for him, good for us.

reply to post by CaDreamer


I saw a couple of recognizable Tea Party members who voted for the bill, but don't know many of the other members. This made me wonder what sort of trend would show up from these self-acclaimed Constitutionalists on this issue.

Honestly was hoping someone would crunch the numbers on that matter and post the results. Thanks for that info CaDreamer!

Originally posted by CaDreamer
thirty-one out of forty of the freshman "tea party" candidates voted yes....Just another R in sheeps clothing

Just One More 'Distraction' and 'False Option' they throw at the 'Sheep'

Anyone who thinks there is even a 'Viable Two Party System' is either brainwashed, or deserves to think there is anyway

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich both voted nay.

Two ends of the political spectrum, but both true to their own codes. I salute the people who keep voting these two in.

I'm so proud of Oregon, only 1 representative voted for extension. What is confusing is that all the democrats in Oregon were against this, yet the so called single conservative voted in favor.

Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Begich (D-AK) Bingaman (D-NM) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Coons (D-DE) Durbin (D-IL) Franken (D-MN) Harkin (D-IA) Heller (R-NV) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Lee (R-UT) Merkley (D-OR) Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Paul (R-KY) Sanders (I-VT) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Wyden (D-OR)

If any of the above senators are from your state, be proud.

This is actually very disconcerning. Politics is something I try to stay out of, but sometimes I just wonder what these guys are thinking. Clearly the ones in power are not voting in favor of the people.

As much as I hate the guy, I think Michael Moore had it right when he went to go recruit army troops from US senators offspring.

Senate Vote:

Grouped By Vote PositionYEAs ---72
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moran (R-KS)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Franken (D-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Heller (R-NV)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Paul (R-KY)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 5
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Schumer (D-NY)

senate.gov...

Wrote a letter to my rep:



I am writing you to communicate my disappointment in your vote to extend the “Patriot Act” (H.R. 514).

While I understand the difficulties presented in securing a nation against an enemy whose tactics are unpredictable and constantly evolving I worry about the erosion of personal freedoms granted by the United States Constitution – specifically the 4th amendment.

I believe that it is possible to effectively investigate and subvert terrorist elements without encroaching on the individual rights of the American citizen.

Unfortunately I feel that many of the provisions in the “Patriot Act” simply blur the line too much to continue being accepted in today’s current environment and that a more constitutionally sound long term solution should be sought.

The extension of this legislation was unnecessary.
It has served its purpose and the time has come for it to pass into the annals of history.

With its renewal I feel that it further prolongs an environment in which the individual’s rights are minimized and presents with that the threat of, through time, permanently altering the perception of future law enforcement agencies and their officers.

To further clarify my point:
The longer it is perceived as acceptable to cut corners in the interests of streamlining processes at the sacrifice of constitutional freedoms and procedurals (such as obtaining a warrant from a judge for wiretaps or searches) the less likely it is that those freedoms will continue to be respected and those constitutionally protected rights will be retained.

I feel that the compromise the “Patriot Act” provides is no longer acceptable.

We are allowing a perceived threat to indefinitely alter the way the citizens and government interact. If we allow these threats to relegate our citizens to a sea of potential suspects instead of people who you are supposed to be working for and representing the interests of then we have sacrificed much more than any terrorist could possibly take away from us.

I personally believe there are better solutions available than what the “Patriot Act” offers – solutions that could potentially benefit all parties involved and I encourage you to explore them.

Again, I am disappointed in your choice and do not feel that it is representative of my wishes as your constituent.


Thank you for your service

Wow...
Only one Rep. in Wa State voted against it.
All voted against it in OR, 'cept one..Go OR!!! Thanks for trying.
Here's other Reps of the Pacific NW that stood for freedom;

Nay AK-0 Young, Donald [R]
Nay WA-7 McDermott, James [D]
Nay OR-1 Wu, David [D]
Nay OR-3 Blumenauer, Earl [D]
Nay OR-4 DeFazio, Peter [D]
Nay OR-5 Schrader, Kurt [D]
Nay ID-1 Labrador, Raúl [R]
Nay MT-0 Rehberg, Dennis [R]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


reply to post by SlyingFaucers


Mucho Gracias to both of you!

One of my home Senators voted YEA.


The other voted NAY.


The one who voted for extending this abomination is going up for election first.

Ta-Dah! One incumbent most certain to NOT get my vote next election!

reply to post by coldkidc


On behalf of the majority of US citizens, and I'm sure the vast majority of ATSers...

Thank you for doing that! Well said,respectful, yet with real impact.

well now matter who voted how it passed, signed by the POTUS and is now law, he used an auto pen, news.yahoo.com... from the link

With Obama currently in France, the White House said the president would use an autopen machine that holds a pen and signs his actual signature. It is only used with proper authorization of the president. Minutes before the midnight deadline, the White House said Obama had signed the bill.

is our tech not wonderful, the pres no longer needs to be in dc or at the Cap, just needs a pen to sign.

Originally posted by bekod
well now matter who voted how it passed, signed by the POTUS and is now law, he used an auto pen, news.yahoo.com... from the link

With Obama currently in France, the White House said the president would use an autopen machine that holds a pen and signs his actual signature. It is only used with proper authorization of the president. Minutes before the midnight deadline, the White House said Obama had signed the bill.

is our tech not wonderful, the pres no longer needs to be in dc or at the Cap, just needs a pen to sign.

It has been wonderful like that for 70 years now.

DAMILIC Corporation records indicate that the prospectus for the Initial Public Offering of Autopen Corporation was dated February 7, 1940. At that time the company had completed the design of their first machine and the design of a second model was well underway.

link

JFK autopen samples

Sorry but this habit of bashing Obama for these simple things presidents do is getting really annoying. I do not even support the man but ATS makes me want to defend him so that maybe some of you can pay attention to the real issues. He is not the first president to use the autopen or a teleprompter. He is just the first black one to do those thing but I know that has nothing to do with it.

The Patriot Act was just extended and as long as people are worried about the 70 year old autopen, it will be extended next time too.