See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: S. 1959: Thought Crime Bill Threatens 4um Freedom
Source:
Congress, Senate
URL Source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1959
Published: Aug 2, 2007
Author: Senator Susan Collins, R-ME
Post Date: 2008-01-13 09:33:52 by buckeye
Keywords: 4um
Views: 337
Comments: 22
Obama was reportedly still undecided about this bill in December of last year. We can count on televised debate moderators not to ask him if he has made up his mind. Now is the time to speak up for your right to criticize the government, Israel-first policies, Zionism, the multinational Military Industrial Complex, the SPP, our intelligence departments, and any other thing that bothers your conscience and your sense of patriotism. If we do not make our concerns known now, it may become increasingly difficult to either speak up in hindsight about this legislation or continue expressing yourselves about issues of political concern. Please contact someone on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and have your opinions heard. There is a membership link there with contact links for each senator. 4 will come under scrutiny of the committees and institutes funded by this bill, you can bet on that.
Poster Comment: Thanks to scrapper2 for mentioning this committee, and angle for suggesting that we post a thread on it.
Democrat Republican Joseph I. Lieberman Chairman (ID) (CT) Susan M. Collins Ranking Member (ME) Carl Levin (MI) Ted Stevens (AK) Daniel K. Akaka (HI) George V. Voinovich (OH) Thomas R. Carper (DE) Norm Coleman (MN) Mark L. Pryor (AR) Tom Coburn (OK) Mary L. Landrieu (LA) Pete V. Domenici (NM) Barack Obama (IL) John Warner (VA) Claire McCaskill (MO) John E. Sununu (NH) Jon Tester (MT)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, christine, angle, scrapper2 (#0)
ping
Contacting them about S1959 is pointless. The bill is not moving. Contact them about HR1955 if you want to make a difference. But hey, don't take the lobbyist's word for it. Could you help us devise a strategy? I thought that since HR 1955 was already passed in the House, it was more important to stop it from being passed in the Senate. We know that Arbusto will sign it if it comes across his desk. These are the matched pieces of legislation, aren't they?
It is. This thread is about S1959 which is a separate bill that is going nowhere. Contacting you Senator about S1959 will do nothing to stop HR1955. I saw earlier on this thread that HR 2640 the Veterans Disarmament Act has been signed into law. I checked and they are correct. H.R.2640 Maybe I need to educate people on how bills pass through Congress. S1959 is a related bill to HR1955 but not the same bill. While you are busy fighting S1959, HR1955 could pass and be signed into law. It is the one that is passing so far. Bills DO NOT change their designations when they pass from one house to the next.
HR 2640 is another issue. HR 1955, with the same title as the legislation now in the senate, is already passed in congress. What can be done about it? Doesn't S 1959 have to pass in the senate before the President will sign one piece of legislation or the other?
HR 1955 is already passed. Does that mean the President can sign it any time, no matter what the Senate does?
No. HR1955, a bill originating in the House, has passed the House and is now in committee in the Senate. Once out of committee it gets a full vote of the Senate. If it is changed or amended in the Senate then it will have to have a conference committee with the House to reconcile the two versions. After that it moves to the President's desk. S1959, originating in the Senate, is a separate bill now in a Senate committee. In order for it to become law it will have to pass the Senate, move to the House, pass the House and be signed by the President.
No, it has passed the House and moved to the Senate. It could die there. That's what we want. Then you have to watch S1959, they could pick that bill up and start moving it to sneak one by us.
Both pieces of Legislation are now in the Senate committee. The fact that they carry the same title means nothing. Don't let that confuse you. And HR1955 has not passed Congress, it has only passed in the House. It must still pass in the Senate.
So we need to contact the same committee to persuade them to let HR 1955 die?
Yes! That's the bill you want to fight and contacting the committe is what you want to do. If it comes out of committee then you need to contact your Senator and urge them to vote against. I have Boxer and Feinstein. Lot of good that will do.
I'll bet Chrissy & Zip will look totally hot in their orange jumpsuits and chains.
You're doing your part, FF. You can't be expected to do more.
Aww that's sweet. Thanks.
It might be a good idea to follow FF's lead here and change the title of the thread to "HR 1955 Now in Senate Committee: Thought Crime Bill Threatens 4um Freedom". I doubt anyone responsible for the website itself will be in jumpsuits, but the bill describes analysis of "groups" of people, and since we post together, even if we don't all agree, we could be considered a group.
THOUGHT CRIME COMMISSION IS IN OBAMA'S HANDS "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
"Oprah is going to kick your ass" (if you pass the bill, Obama). Right.
related videos here posted yesterday on Freedom of Speech and H.R. 1955:
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! FF - you are the former lobbyist, I have never been one - so I yield to your experience...but...I think we need to be very careful in this instance - when you google HR 1955, the hits that come up are HR 1955/S1959 and many sites imply as per rense below that HR 1955 will be folded into S 1959 in Committee and that it's S1959 that is the hot one which will move further along the pipeline...since both bills are identical and both have been sent to the Senate Committee for Homeland Security for consideration, would they not both be considered and voted on at the same time? Are you certain that one of them ( HR 1955) gets considered by the Committee earlier than the other (S 1959)? Consider also that the 2 Senators, Collins and Coleman, who co-sponsored the Senate companion bill ( S1959) also sit on the Committee of Homeland Security with Collins being the Co-Chair. In light of this, wouldn't the Committee consider both bills at the same time and possibly of folding the 2 bills into one? Then have the Senate as a whole vote on one and then send it back to the House for a symbolic vote and since there were no changes, the bill goes to dubya thereafter. I can't imagine that they would leave S1959 under raps and pull it out of the hat in January 2009. The 2 bills are identical except one started in the House and the other started in the Senate. At the very least perhaps we should make our calls and send our letters and faxes and refer to HR 1955/S1959 so we cover our bases.
especially the chains.
Tag Line For Rent (M, 48, NY)
This is incorrect. Not sure why they think that. Yes it would be prudent to hit both bill numbers when you call, might as well. HR1955 is farther along in the process. Oh wait until you are tracking a bill and they gut it and substitute something else. They have deadlines for proposing legislation. So an issue comes up they want to deal with but the deadline has passed. They take a bill that they don't care about or isn't moving and they take the number for something else. I had it happen to two bills I was tracking this year.
Here is the speech in the Congressional record made when it was introduced. S . 1959 . A bill to establish the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Foreign-based terrorism has weighed heavily in the news and in our thoughts for more than a decade. Since the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, we have seen foreign-based terrorists attack our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, a Navy destroyer in Yemen, the World Trade Center again, and the Pentagon. Timely arrests prevented foreign-based terrorists from carrying out a bombing plot directed at the Los Angeles airport and, more recently, attacks targeting U.S.-bound flights originating in England. This long-standing and still-deadly threat requires continued surveillance and aggressive action, and will for years to come. But we cannot confine our counter-terrorism efforts to attacks organized in and launched from other countries. As demonstrated by the bloody bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal office building in 1995 and by this year's arrests of suspects in plots directed at JFK International Airport and Fort Dix, NJ, domestic radicalization and violent extremism are also threats to American lives and American society. The most effective border security will not prevent ``home-grown'' terrorists from attacking our citizens. We need to better understand the triggers for radicalization and violence in order to counter the threat of terrorists on American soil. For nearly a year now, Senator LIEBERMAN and I have conducted an investigation and held a series of hearings in the Senate Homeland Security Committee probing different aspects of this domestic danger by examining radicalization in prisons, radicalization trends, the Internet and violent extremism, lessons from the European experience, and the adequacy of government counter-measures. The harvest of information and insights from these hearings has helped alert us to dangers, guide our oversight activities, and formulate ideas for legislative action. The testimony and evidence we have seen persuade me that we need to undertake an even more in-depth examination of the threats of domestic radicalization and violent extremism. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act would provide such an examination. It is a companion measure to the bill introduced by Representatives Jane Harman of California and Dave Reichert of Washington in the House of Representatives. Congresswoman Harman has been extraordinarily perceptive in understanding the threat of violent radicalization, and her bill's unanimous approval by the House Homeland Security Committee is a tribute to her leadership. My bill, like the House measure, includes two key initiatives. First, it would create a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism. Second, it would establish a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the U.S. The Commission would devote itself to a survey of what we know, and what we need to learn, about the social and psychological breeding grounds of extremism, the process of radicalization, the factors that cause people to turn to violence, the processes of recruitment and coordination, and the phenomenon of self-radicalization and ``lone wolf'' terrorism. To ensure a broad range of input for the commission, members would be selected for their qualifications by the President, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, and the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committees of the House and Senate. The commission's final report, to be delivered within 18 months of its initial meeting, would provide a solid base of information and a guide for further research and action against the dangers that we face. A ``final report,'' however useful, cannot be the last word in the fight against a threat that has been growing for years and may persist for decades. That is why the bill takes the important second step of establishing a university-based Center of Excellence focused on homegrown terrorism, violent radicalization, and ideologically based violence. The Department of Homeland Security currently has 8 Centers for Excellence focusing on various aspects of homeland security, such as risk-analysis, food protection, and catastrophic-event preparedness and response. My bill would empower the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate a new center or to expand the mission of an existing center. In either case, such a center will provide an institution dedicated to researching and understanding violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism, and to developing findings that can assist Federal, State, local, and tribal governments in dealing with these threats. It is vital, that our homeland-security efforts extend to a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the radicalization process that turns people living in our midst to ideologically based violence and terrorism. It is also vital that we create an academically based center to sustain high-quality research efforts on this threat to augment federal initiatives and to expand and supplement Government thinking. This bill, which closely parallels legislation now moving through the House of Representatives, meets those vital needs. I urge my colleagues to support the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.
#2. To: farmfriend, scrapper2 (#1)
#173. To: angle, buckeye, christine (#172)
#3. To: buckeye (#2)
I thought that since HR 1955 was already passed in the House, it was more important to stop it from being passed in the Senate.
Title: To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 6/11/2007) Cosponsors (17)
Related Bills: H.R.297
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 110-180 [GPO: Text, PDF]
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#4. To: buckeye (#2)
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#5. To: farmfriend (#3)
#6. To: farmfriend (#4)
While you are busy fighting S1959, HR1955 could pass and be signed into law.
#7. To: buckeye (#5)
Doesn't S 1959 have to pass in the senate before the President will sign one piece of legislation or the other?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#8. To: buckeye (#6)
(Edited)
HR 1955 is already passed. Does that mean the President can sign it any time, no matter what the Senate does?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#9. To: buckeye (#5)
HR 1955, with the same title as the legislation now in the senate, is already passed in congress.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#10. To: farmfriend (#8)
No, it has passed the House and moved to the Senate. I could die there.
#11. To: buckeye (#10)
So we need to contact the same committee to persuade them to let HR 1955 die?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#12. To: buckeye, christine, Zipporah (#0)
(Edited)
#13. To: farmfriend (#11)
I have Boxer and Feinstein. Lot of good that will do.
#14. To: buckeye (#13)
You're doing your part, FF. You can't be expected to do more.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#15. To: Esso, farmfriend, christine, Zipporah (#12)
I'll bet Chrissy & Zip will look totally hot in their orange jumpsuits and chains.
#16. To: buckeye (#15)
#17. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#16)
#18. To: buckeye (#0)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#19. To: farmfriend, buckeye, robin, christine, Zipporah, Original_Intent (#8)
No, it has passed the House and moved to the Senate. It could die there. That's what we want. Then you have to watch S1959, they could pick that bill up and start moving it to sneak one by us.
#20. To: Esso, christine, zipporah (#12)
I'll bet Chrissy & Zip will look totally hot in their orange jumpsuits and chains.
#21. To: scrapper2 (#19)
S.1959 began in the House, of course, as HR 1955 and passed overwhelmingly to move it on to the Senate.
Postscript from scrapper - this is very confusing.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#22. To: scrapper2 (#19)
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Coleman):
They will probably take the second step she is talking about and amend HR1955 to include it. This will have to be agreed to by the House but from your information that sounds like it won't be a problem.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest