4th Amendment now VOID!!! (VIDEO) EVERYONE MUST WATCH THIS!

[thegodfather]

The 4th Amendment is now a remnant... RIP 4th Amendment... We are now all subject to Gestapo style surveillance by our government without any judicial oversight. Additionally, RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY has been granted to our telecom companies, who have allegiance to us as customers, to FREELY get in bed with government to turn over information on us and allow the government to monitor all of our communications without a warrant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIJdmePn4lY

[PT]

im undecided on whether im for it or against it. of course the government can abuse the power and that im definatly against but if this helps them stop terrorisim then im all for it. the constituation can not remain the samr for our country and world hasnt. when the constituation was first adopted all the way back in 1787 the problems of today did not exist. the world has changed for the worst and our country needs to a dapt so it can better protect itself. if something like the FISA amendment act could of helped prevent sep 11th then i am for it. berfore i end let me strongly express my objection against the government abusing there power here. even though i am mostly for this act i am 100% against the government abusing it for any purpose whatsoever. this should be used for terrorisim and that it.

[Red Ketchup]

Just remember, any "right" that your government can take away from you any time they want "for national security"... "for your protection"... "because it's inconvenient" is no longer a right at all... it's just a privilege, nothing more.

Red

[spywizard]

Good thing they didn't take the weapons now huh??


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.


A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city's ban violated the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.

In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban.

Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood.

Don't Miss
Child rapists can't be executed, court rules
Court rules in favor of Muslim at Gitmo
High court to decide whether Navy saving whales
Gun laws in high court's sights
"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog.

"What more am I supposed to do?" Parker recalled asking authorities. "The police turned to me and said, 'Get a gun.' " See how proponents, opponents argued »

Elilta "Lily" Habtu, however, told the high court that she supports the handgun ban, and tighter gun control in general. Habtu was in a Virginia Tech classroom in April 2007 when fellow student Seung-Hui Cho burst in and began shooting. She survived bullets to the head and arm.

"There has to be tighter gun control; we can't let another Virginia Tech to happen," she told the court. "And we're just not doing it; we're sitting around; we're doing nothing. We let the opportunity arise for more massacres."

In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.

It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.

City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

The Second Amendment says, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.

Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.

The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.

In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.


"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.

[Overhaulz]

im undecided on whether im for it or against it. of course the government can abuse the power and that im definatly against but if this helps them stop terrorisim then im all for it. the constituation can not remain the samr for our country and world hasnt. when the constituation was first adopted all the way back in 1787 the problems of today did not exist. the world has changed for the worst and our country needs to a dapt so it can better protect itself. if something like the FISA amendment act could of helped prevent sep 11th then i am for it. berfore i end let me strongly express my objection against the government abusing there power here. even though i am mostly for this act i am 100% against the government abusing it for any purpose whatsoever. this should be used for terrorisim and that it.

What if the government IS the terrorist though?

[Edgar]

this is good news for steroid users and small time crimenals in America.

[Voice of Reason]

I guess it's official now, this reminds me of when back in 01-03 there were 36 face scanning cameras installed on public streets looking for criminals or people with warrants in a big club/bar district in Tampa all they needed was a 80% match and then this f*cking loud siren went off in the street.

The sh*t was ridiculous and got squashed cause people protested and more likely that it was a failure that the cameras never lead to any arrests some falsely accused tho. Maybe it was just a trial run for things to come...

http://www.sptimes.com/News/071901/F...ce_captu.shtml

[G-1000]

Just another nail in the coffin. I'm all for change and trying to make life better for people. But this is the last thing are government is trying to do.


I have a lot of thoughts an the way are government is making changes. Not one of them are good.

[thegodfather]

im undecided on whether im for it or against it. of course the government can abuse the power and that im definatly against but if this helps them stop terrorisim then im all for it. the constituation can not remain the samr for our country and world hasnt. when the constituation was first adopted all the way back in 1787 the problems of today did not exist. the world has changed for the worst and our country needs to a dapt so it can better protect itself. if something like the FISA amendment act could of helped prevent sep 11th then i am for it. berfore i end let me strongly express my objection against the government abusing there power here. even though i am mostly for this act i am 100% against the government abusing it for any purpose whatsoever. this should be used for terrorisim and that it.

Are you serious? The government is perfectly capable of "preventing terrorism" by OBTAINING WARRANTS!!! There is absolutely no need that I could possibly conjure up in my brain that would lead me to believe they need wide ranging powers to monitor E V E R Y T H I N G, other then that the true nature of this bill is actually much more nefarious in nature. FYI, the "Patriot Act" has overwhelmingly been used against organized crime and drug dealers since its implementation and not to monitor terrorism. Of course, we will NEVER know if it is being used to monitor law abiding citizens, drug dealers, or terrorists, because the bill has essentially told all avenues of judicial oversight to GO SCREW. Yes, these powers have now been given and there is no avenue to know what the government is doing behind closed doors because there is no oversight, they dont have to report to anyone.

[jsinur7]

there will be a civil war again if this stuff doesn't stop... its the new generation of internet users that will out these criminals... right now the only thing keeping them in office is these old farts that just obey what the news says and that belive it is unpatriotic ro question your goverment... if you ask me there is nothing more unamerican than letting the goverment have free run... the internet generation will out these criminals and educate themselves with facts, and not with news propoganda

[bigt10]

there will be a civil war again if this stuff doesn't stop... its the new generation of internet users that will out these criminals... right now the only thing keeping them in office is these old farts that just obey what the news says and that belive it is unpatriotic ro question your goverment... if you ask me there is nothing more unamerican than letting the goverment have free run... the internet generation will out these criminals and educate themselves with facts, and not with news propoganda

Ya its coming wait till the Fed ruins our currency.

The day is going to come when others stop excepting our dollar.

One day mighty Helicopter ben cant even do anything.

The day the people reject their own currency that is going to happen.

When there is a huge war i hope the next constitution makes it more clear they're shall be no bills of credit handed out more than specie and there is to be no central bank what so ever.

[RaWRZ0R!]

im about to move to another country...

[SMCengineer]

im undecided on whether im for it or against it. of course the government can abuse the power and that im definatly against but if this helps them stop terrorisim then im all for it. the constituation can not remain the samr for our country and world hasnt. when the constituation was first adopted all the way back in 1787 the problems of today did not exist. the world has changed for the worst and our country needs to a dapt so it can better protect itself. if something like the FISA amendment act could of helped prevent sep 11th then i am for it. berfore i end let me strongly express my objection against the government abusing there power here. even though i am mostly for this act i am 100% against the government abusing it for any purpose whatsoever. this should be used for terrorisim and that it.

I don't think you fully understand what the constitution is meant to protect if you trully believe this. What you're referring too is called a "living constitution." Some of the greatest usurpations of power and encroachments of rights have occurred when either the President or the Congress or both believed that the constitution was a living document. The constitution was designed to protect natural God given rights. Natural God given rights do not change over time or with technology, no matter what anybody tells you. Nor do Social and economic changes dictate what your rights are as a human being. The constitution was designed to never become obsolete and as such, we should be very wary of acquiescing our rights so easily because it won't stop here.

[DADDYDBOL]

The 4th Amendment is now a remnant... RIP 4th Amendment... We are now all subject to Gestapo style surveillance by our government without any judicial oversight. Additionally, RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY has been granted to our telecom companies, who have allegiance to us as customers, to FREELY get in bed with government to turn over information on us and allow the government to monitor all of our communications without a warrant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIJdmePn4lY

exactly how is this going to affect you...amico?

another way to put the squeeze on certain people already here...terrosists my @$$

[SMCengineer]

exactly how is this going to affect you...amico?

another way to put the squeeze on certain people already here...terrosists my @$$

Allowing the government to erode your constitutional rights effects everyone, whether you think it does or not. Massive usurpations of power do not happen over night. Gradual chipping away at your rights is exactly how you will eventually loose all your rights given by the constitution.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations...This danger ought to be wisely guarded against."

-James Madison

[gst528i]

Thats horrible.

[MuscleScience]

im undecided on whether im for it or against it. of course the government can abuse the power and that im definatly against but if this helps them stop terrorisim then im all for it. the constituation can not remain the samr for our country and world hasnt. when the constituation was first adopted all the way back in 1787 the problems of today did not exist. the world has changed for the worst and our country needs to a dapt so it can better protect itself. if something like the FISA amendment act could of helped prevent sep 11th then i am for it. berfore i end let me strongly express my objection against the government abusing there power here. even though i am mostly for this act i am 100% against the government abusing it for any purpose whatsoever. this should be used for terrorisim and that it.

The Idea of a living constitution is one of the problems with this nation and losing our freedoms. At some point when you start changing the very principles that this nation fought for, you change that nation completely. The Constitution is a set of laws that were set forth by the founding fathers to dictate the way the new nation should proceed and conduct itself. Throughout history the mistake is made over and over again by societies that their current situations is more complex or advanced than the previous generations situations. There is an inherent human nature that no matter if its 500 b.c. or 2003, people and nations act the same at the most basic of levels.

If you believe that the lessons of 1776 do not apply to today then truly history has taught us nothing. I for one do not want to live like the europeans do, I do not want to live like the russians or chinese or any other population. I want to live like an american the same way my forefathers have lived since coming to this great nation. I want my kids to be raise in a nation that understands life is not always fair but what is fair is the law and order applies to all. Not just for the elite or those who have powers that govern.
me.

Another reason for the Constitutions to be set in place was that those in power would have a tremendously difficult time in enacting laws that would benefit the elite of this nation as opposed to all. If we start changing the rules in the middle of the game. Who do you think changes those rules. The ones that are already winning.

[Bojangles69]

Godfather I can rarely watch the vids you post because everytime I'm on here I'm on a computer that doesn't play video. (POS G/DMN M/FKR)

But I must say you are one smart mofo. I'd suggest somehow making yourself stupid because one day you might piss the FEDS off and dissappear like that Cooper guy.

[PT]

i was watching this one very closely and am extremly happy it ended the way it did. i have many assult rifles and pistols as well as a carrying permit
and if they banned them in dc other major cities would of followed

Good thing they didn't take the weapons now huh??


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.


A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city's ban violated the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.

In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban.

Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood.

Don't Miss
Child rapists can't be executed, court rules
Court rules in favor of Muslim at Gitmo
High court to decide whether Navy saving whales
Gun laws in high court's sights
"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog.

"What more am I supposed to do?" Parker recalled asking authorities. "The police turned to me and said, 'Get a gun.' " See how proponents, opponents argued »

Elilta "Lily" Habtu, however, told the high court that she supports the handgun ban, and tighter gun control in general. Habtu was in a Virginia Tech classroom in April 2007 when fellow student Seung-Hui Cho burst in and began shooting. She survived bullets to the head and arm.

"There has to be tighter gun control; we can't let another Virginia Tech to happen," she told the court. "And we're just not doing it; we're sitting around; we're doing nothing. We let the opportunity arise for more massacres."

In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.

It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.

City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

The Second Amendment says, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.

Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.

The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.

In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.


"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.

[thegodfather]

Godfather I can rarely watch the vids you post because everytime I'm on here I'm on a computer that doesn't play video. (POS G/DMN M/FKR)

But I must say you are one smart mofo. I'd suggest somehow making yourself stupid because one day you might piss the FEDS off and dissappear like that Cooper guy.

Lol...thanks dude but Im just as old as you...about to be a senior in college...

[PT]

I don't think you fully understand what the constitution is meant to protect if you trully believe this. What you're referring too is called a "living constitution." Some of the greatest usurpations of power and encroachments of rights have occurred when either the President or the Congress or both believed that the constitution was a living document. The constitution was designed to protect natural God given rights. Natural God given rights do not change over time or with technology, no matter what anybody tells you. Nor do Social and economic changes dictate what your rights are as a human being. The constitution was designed to never become obsolete and as such, we should be very wary of acquiescing our rights so easily because it won't stop here.

i do understand the constitution and like i said, sometimes you have to change with the world. terrorisim wasnt around 100 years ago and if you want to stop them stupied fuks then its gotta be no holds bar and any means neccesary. unfortunatly times has changed bro and if you expect to continue living a safe life then you might have to change the constituation in order to do so. im sure if you worked for the secret service, cia, nsa or fbi your views would change watching all these fuks slip thru your fingers. oh yea by the way im also for getting info out of them by any means neccesary even if it means tourture. let me explain this to you guys so you totally understand my views and stop trying to tell me different points because this isnt the first time i debated the issue. im totally for using the fisa admendment to help catch terrirists period. i wouldnt want it used for robbers, burgler, drug dealers, etc.... if your so against it then dont blame our government if a nuke goes off in your town someday or a plane crashes into your parents building there working in. terrorists may of existed 100 years ago but it was WAY different then the terrorisim of today. the definition of fisa is- U.S. federal law prescribing procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law: §1801 on territory under United States control. if it helps keep my country safer from terrorists then i am 100% for it but if the government abuses the power in any such form then im 100% against that. there is still a secret court that meets to approve or deny the warrent. i would rather have a few terrorists lose a little of there rights as opposed to a nuck, chemical or biological weapon being relased or detonated on US soil

[DADDYDBOL]

Allowing the government to erode your constitutional rights effects everyone, whether you think it does or not. Massive usurpations of power do not happen over night. Gradual chipping away at your rights is exactly how you will eventually loose all your rights given by the constitution.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations...This danger ought to be wisely guarded against."

-James Madison

obviously you missed the sarcasm...learn Italian

[DADDYDBOL]

actually its crap like this that is making me lean liberal...

[thegodfather]

i do understand the constitution and like i said, sometimes you have to change with the world. terrorisim wasnt around 100 years ago and if you want to stop them stupied fuks then its gotta be no holds bar and any means neccesary. unfortunatly times has changed bro and if you expect to continue living a safe life then you might have to change the constituation in order to do so. im sure if you worked for the secret service, cia, nsa or fbi your views would change watching all these fuks slip thru your fingers. oh yea by the way im also for getting info out of them by any means neccesary even if it means tourture. let me explain this to you guys so you totally understand my views and stop trying to tell me different points because this isnt the first time i debated the issue. im totally for using the fisa admendment to help catch terrirists period. i wouldnt want it used for robbers, burgler, drug dealers, etc.... if your so against it then dont blame our government if a nuke goes off in your town someday or a plane crashes into your parents building there working in

Are you serious once again? Terrorism is one of the oldest TACTICS in the book of war. Do you think the British Crown called the founding fathers of this country "Freedom Fighters" during the R*********ary War in 1776? Absolutely not, the Crown pronounced these people as TERRORISTS, yes, it called them that word specifically. More over they were also branded as traitors, because according to the Crown; the territories of the future United States were OWNED by the Crown.

The first thing that they teach us in International Relations(i suggest anyone who has the chance to take this as an elective does so) is that TERRORISM is a TACTIC, and it is impossible to wage a "WAR" against a TACTIC. It would be similar to waging war against "frontal assaults" or waging war against "flanking." It is simply illogical. Additionally, it has always been the stronger of the two warring parties who labeled the other some sort of defamatory remark- Evil, Terrorists, Traitors, Blasphemors, "Islamofascist Extremists"...

This is perhaps the BEST example of political fear mongering that can be seen in present day politics. During many of the debaates the candidates said we are fighting a war against "Islamofascist extremeists"... What in Gods name is a fu*king "Islamofacist?" The two words make absolutely no sense together. Islam, is a name for their religion, Islam/Muslim. Then Fascism, which is a type of governance whereby government and corporations are closely in bed with one another, or whereby the government nationalizes many private sectors of business. The point here is clear, whenever a politician in the modern day wants to DEMONIZE their enemy, they try to associate them with HITLER/NAZISM. Yes, when Ahmedinejhad so much as J-walks, President Bush is on TV telling us that Ahmedinejhad is the next coming of Hitler.

So I will present you with one political lens which we use to examine international politics. It is the realist theory. The realist theory would say that it is absurd to view Tehran/Iran as a viable threat because they lack ALL CAPABILITY to wage a war against us or to attack Israel. It would be equivalent to Mickey Mouse saying he is going to invade Russia all by himself. The Realist view would say that indeed Hitler/Germany/Third Reich were in fact a viable threat, because they posessed one of the largest army's of the time, and if he said he was going to invade a country, he very well could because he posessed the power to do so. On the other hand, Iran lacks any of those capabilities, it is unlikely that they could even invade their neighbors with much success. I could go on and on about Iran and the many reasons it is not a threat, but this is a good summation in brevity.

One more thing guys, if we are going to wage wars against these countries and demonize them, we might as well PRONOUNCE THEIR NAMES CORRECTLY. I just think it should be a pre-requesite to waging war against someone.

There is no such country as I--RAN. It is pronounced EEERAN.

There is no such country as I-RAQ. It is pronounced EEERAQ.

Both names stem from the word Aaryan. The Aaryan race. Quite ironic that Hitlers perfect Aaryan race actually originated in the Middle East. One more thing, you people need to stop referring to Iraqis as Arabs. THEY ARE NOT ARAB, THEY ARE PERSIAN!!!!!!!

[DADDYDBOL]

absolute power corrupts absolutely

[SMCengineer]

obviously you missed the sarcasm...learn Italian

haha...yep totally missed it.

[SMCengineer]

i do understand the constitution and like i said, sometimes you have to change with the world. terrorisim wasnt around 100 years ago and if you want to stop them stupied fuks then its gotta be no holds bar and any means neccesary. unfortunatly times has changed bro and if you expect to continue living a safe life then you might have to change the constituation in order to do so.

Terrorism definitely existed 100 years ago and times may have changed, but human nature has not. If the constitution is changed, which is simply a set of laws that restrict the government from infringing on the peoples god given rights (it doesn't give us our rights), than you're acquiescing your rights to people who were never meant to have them in the first place.

im sure if you worked for the secret service, cia, nsa or fbi your views would change watching all these fuks slip thru your fingers. oh yea by the way im also for getting info out of them by any means neccesary even if it means tourture. let me explain this to you guys so you totally understand my views and stop trying to tell me different points because this isnt the first time i debated the issue. im totally for using the fisa admendment to help catch terrirists period. i wouldnt want it used for robbers, burgler, drug dealers, etc....

What, exactly, is stopping them from abusing this power and using it stop burglars, drug dealers, etc? And, assuming this adminstration doesn't abuse these powers, what is stopping future administrations from abusing them? There's a reason we have a system of checks and balances and it's to prevent exactly this type of situation, which we're so easily accepting.

if your so against it then dont blame our government if a nuke goes off in your town someday or a plane crashes into your parents building there working in

That's horrible logic and jingoistic rethoric. That's called fear mongering at it's finest. The blame certainly could be placed on the government whether or not we have FISA. Do you realize the amount of information we had pre-911? It isn't our ability to collect info on these people that's allowing them slip through, it's our inability to decipher all the information that causes the problems.

[SMCengineer]

actually its crap like this that is making me lean liberal...

Ironically, being against the FISA bill is actually a conservative viewpoint. Just goes to show what we now believe defines a "Conservative Republican."

[DADDYDBOL]

Ironically, being against the FISA bill is actually a conservative viewpoint. Just goes to show what we now believe defines a "Conservative Republican."

yeah in theory...but this seems to be pushed for by the republican party

[SMCengineer]

yeah in theory...but this seems to be pushed for by the republican party

You're right. That's exactly what I mean. A true Conservative Republican would be completely against this type of legislation, unfortunately there's not many left in Washington.