4 ms·

No, they didn't approve it. Jim Sensenbrenner, Author of the PATRIOT Act, has himself said that the presidents' interpretation are an abuse of the law. http:/

by Amadou 13y ago

No, they didn't approve it. Jim Sensenbrenner, Author of the PATRIOT Act, has himself said that the presidents' interpretation are an abuse of the law. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/09/abuse-patriot-act-must-end http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/09/abuse-pa... If the guy who wrote the law says, "that is not what I meant" it is pretty clear that what congress voted for and what they got are two different things.

rainsford 13y ago
He's just one congressman and, author of the PATRIOT Act or not, he doesn't necessarily speak for all of Congress. And in any case he's just talking about one particular program (which, perhaps tellingly, is the only one there seems to be any serious debate in congress about).
mpyne 13y ago
> If the guy who wrote the law says, "that is not what I meant" it is pretty clear that what congress voted for and what they got are two different things. And so when people warned him that the law he actually wrong might be used to create programs that actually happened, why didn't he reword the law to conform to what he says he meant? Either way, doesn't matter one fig what Jim personally meant when he drafted the law; what does Congress think they passed is the different question. Just like you shouldn't proofread your own writing, you shouldn't assume 535 legislators and a President came to the same meaning of your draft legislation as you had in mind when you drafted it.
- Amadou 13y ago
  Your proof-reading example doesn't fit this case. When you write something, the people who read it rarely also talk to you about it. In congress, most bills are "lobbied" for by the authors - they go around talking to other members of congress to try to sell them on voting for it. In such a situation it absolutely matters what the author thinks the bill says because, if nothing else, it will have a large effect on how the bill is perceived when it is later read. In the specific case of the patriot act most members of congress did not even read it before voting on it. The only thing they had to go on is how it was presented by the author. http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/03/02/congress-had-no-time-to-read-the-usa-patriot-act/ http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/03/02/congress-had-n...
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  Which is why it's so crazy there are still a few well known CISPA supporters around here.

by Amadou 13y ago

rainsford 13y ago

He's just one congressman and, author of the PATRIOT Act or not, he doesn't necessarily speak for all of Congress. And in any case he's just talking about one particular program (which, perhaps tellingly, is the only one there seems to be any serious debate in congress about).

mpyne 13y ago

> If the guy who wrote the law says, "that is not what I meant" it is pretty clear that what congress voted for and what they got are two different things. And so when people warned him that the law he actually wrong might be used to create programs that actually happened, why didn't he reword the law to conform to what he says he meant? Either way, doesn't matter one fig what Jim personally meant when he drafted the law; what does Congress think they passed is the different question. Just like you shouldn't proofread your own writing, you shouldn't assume 535 legislators and a President came to the same meaning of your draft legislation as you had in mind when you drafted it.

Amadou 13y ago
Your proof-reading example doesn't fit this case. When you write something, the people who read it rarely also talk to you about it. In congress, most bills are "lobbied" for by the authors - they go around talking to other members of congress to try to sell them on voting for it. In such a situation it absolutely matters what the author thinks the bill says because, if nothing else, it will have a large effect on how the bill is perceived when it is later read. In the specific case of the patriot act most members of congress did not even read it before voting on it. The only thing they had to go on is how it was presented by the author. http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/03/02/congress-had-no-time-to-read-the-usa-patriot-act/ http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/03/02/congress-had-n...
lawnchair_larry 13y ago
Which is why it's so crazy there are still a few well known CISPA supporters around here.