Pre-Header Tagline

You don't coerce or injure others. Why can politicians do it?

NDAA Status and the Clapper Brief

When you fund it, we do it. So...

Clapper v. Amnesty International was argued in Supreme Court on October 29. Downsize DC Foundation filed a brief in this case. You funded it. We did it. You can read it, on our blog.

Cato’s Jim Harper liked our brief and wrote about it.  Now we wait for the ruling.

Last week we pointed out that the Courts (bad as they are) have done more to restrain state criminality than elections have. Our landmark victory in the Jones case is one example, and that case relates directly to our Clapper brief. Remember...

In Jones we argued that the Courts should restore the property rights basis for limiting state searches under the 4th Amendment. Our argument prevailed, potentially bringing the courts back from a 40 year detour away from the founder's principle. 

The Courts ruled that agents of the state cannot place tracking devices on vehicles without either . . .

  • The permission of the owner, or . . .
  • A warrant

This is a major turning point. Fourth Amendment decisions have centered on the right to privacy for decades. Every time some new spying technology was developed, Fourth Amendment protections steadily shrunk. As a standard, privacy minus property rights was failing. With Jones, we’ve turned the tide by restoring the property rights standard.

Your brief was the ONLY amicus brief to make the historical and constitutional case that the Fourth Amendment is a property right.

Now, with our Clapper brief, we’re trying to extend this property rights standard to your electronic communications.

If The State can’t read your mail, why can they read your email or listen to your phone calls? It’s all information, just like a letter. It’s your information!

Will the Court’s ruling in Clapper be consistent with what they ruled in Jones? If it is then your funding will have helped to undo a major part of the embryonic police-state our politicians have been building. Those who donated to this brief should feel very proud about that.

Remember, when you fund it, we do it.

And can we do the same thing with . . .


Can we overturn the President’s new legalized kidnapping powers?

We think our lawyers have shown they can do a good job for you, on almost any subject, from campaign finance to warrantless spying to legalized kidnapping. They tell me that . . .

  • The case is being well-argued by the plaintiffs and their attorneys, starting with Pulitzer Prize winning writer, Christopher Hedges. Most of the time, legal counsel, for the litigants that we're backing, compromise the Constitution away; but not this time!
  • They are well-prepared by the research and development they did for our earlier brief, at the federal district court (you funded that too, and we did it)
  • Their goal is to fill is to effectively supplement the Hedges team. Maybe, we'll offer that extra argument or rhetoric needed for victory
  • They have more time than usual, so they can be extra thorough -- that is, if they can afford the time (that’s up to you), you see...

We’ve run past the funding that some Downsizers gave us for this NDAA brief, and we need to write another check to finish the work. We took the lead on the first brief, but this one is underfunded. I urge you: Please make sure we are as effective as possible. Please invest in this project, if at all possible!

All donors (who do NOT mark their names as private) when they contribute, will also be recognized on the new Zero Aggression Project website, as a Co-Founder or Associate Founder. We will be announcing the closing date for the Founder's roster, real soon.

Also, contributions for the NDAA amicus brief project are tax-deductible. Please give to this Downsize DC Foundation project.

Remember, when you fund it, we do it!

Jim Babka
Downsize DC Foundation