Democrats Tank FISA Warrant Requirement
The measure would have required federal agents to get a warrant before searching American communications collected as part of foreign intelligence.

A measure requiring federal agents to get a warrant before searching American communications collected as part of foreign intelligence failed to pass the House of Representatives today. The measure received 212 votes for and 212 votes against.
"This is a sad day for America," said Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.). "The Speaker doesn't always vote in the House, but he was the tie breaker today. He voted against warrants."
But it was largely Democrats who sank the warrant requirement. House Democrats voted against the measure 84–126, while Republicans voted for the measure 128–86.
MAGA Republicans have been the ones leading the charge for Section 702 reform, which they see as part of reigning in an unaccountable FBI and "deep state."
The measure in question came in the form of an amendment to House Resolution 7888, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA). H.R. 7888 would reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Section 702—which must be reauthorized every four years—technically provides the federal government with the authority to collect and search the digital communications of foreign persons outside of the United States. But federal snoops also sweep up all sorts of communications from Americans in the course of doing this, and FBI agents routinely search this database when investigating domestic crimes.
For more than a decade, activists and some lawmakers have been pushing to require warrants for searching the Section 702 database for information about American citizens.
Requiring a warrant to search Americans' communications "is something the Constitution ALREADY requires," pointed out former Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, calling on people to "vote out every person who voted no" on the warrant requirement.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Speaker Johnson could have been the tie breaking vote to require warrants. Instead he voted no. Despite years being for the requirement as a member of the freedom caucus. He states his views changed after a classified briefing with the DoJ.
Shows how quickly the deep state can get to people. Should be removed as speaker.
We truly have a Uniparty.
And they aren’t the people we get to vote for.
I'm happy my Congresswoman voted against this. Mace is no Thomas Massie. But, every now and then she makes me proud.
She seems better than average from what I can tell. Mine also voted for it.
Edit: and the vote for the amendment was to include the warrant requirement. She voted for it.
I'm surprised Stefanik was a no given the VP talk.
Do they wear matching unitards under their suits? You know, like Mormon underwear.
Is this you denying the term again? We know how much you depend on the uniparty for both sides attacks.
They might as well be wearing unitards under their suits, sarcasmic. 🙂
They are indistinguishable from each other, which makes the UniParty label fit.
I'm not even sure what the label means. The only time I see it used is when Republicans agree with Democrats on some issue the MAGA people don't like.
Yes, we know that you see everything through a trump-focused lens.
Intentional ignorance is one of sarc’s go-tos.
Did you see him earlier saying he couldn't find articles about the Jan 6 committee deleting data?
Been busy all day, but doesn’t surprise me.
He’s been busy drinking.
"Intentional ignorance is one of sarc’s go-tos."
Fuck him. No, seriously, Sarcasmic can go fuck himself.
In the last four years he's seen government censorship of social media, political prosecutions and uneven application of the law, mandatory medical procedures, government spying on opposition members and legitimate campaigns, 90 some frivolous political charges against the leading opposition candidate, an anti-speech movement, government bureaucrats giving documents they knew were fraudulent to congress, racist astroturf campaigns by three letter agencies, a congressional Kangaroo court that deliberately hid evidence that exonerated dozens of people, etcetera, etcetera, and he doesn't give a shit.
This is stuff that was unthinkable anywhere in the Western world only a decade ago. Any actual libertarian or classic liberal looking at what's happening would be filled with rage even if he passionately hated Trump.
But not Sarcasmic, because he's obviously not a libertarian no matter what he claims.
The people claiming to be "defending democracy" from an existential threat have enacted every bit as many "banana republic" practices (maybe even more of them) than what the guy they're fighting against possibly could have, and did so with an actively complicit media establishment running cover for them. No need for "State run media" when the guys running the major outlets are eager collaborators on their own steam.
If trump manages to survive the NYC kangaroo trial in which he's destined to be convicted on every fabricated count of attempting to "cover up" a non-criminal payment which got spun by opportunistic Prosecutors into leverage to compel a "smaller fish" with a cooperation deal by exploiting a vague area of a Federal Statute (pages 3-23 in the A-USA playbook) into entering a guilty plea for a "crime" which a supposed co-conspirator was ultimately acquitted (by a jury ruling that the activity in question was never a crime)
Some wear blue ones and some wear pink ones, but in this case, they're universal tards.
They probably don’t piss themselves after getting blackout drunk. Not like you Drunky.
But there was a big difference in the votes of the two parties, so maybe we don't. The thing is, the party alignments on particular issues change with the times. Twenty years ago, I expect it would have been the Democrats voting to require warrants, and the Republicans voting against. Now it's largely the other way around. But not entirely. AOC, for one, voted to require warrants. For better or worse, she's my conngresscritter. Usually for the worse, but not this time.
Saying that Johnson was the "tiebreaker" is quite misleading, if I am reading the results right. He was the tie maker. If he hadn't voted, the measure would have passed, 212 to 211. He stepped in to cause a tie vote, resulting in the bill not passing, since it didn't have a majority. Correct? And he can't even tell us why, since the briefing that "changed his mind" was classified.
There’s just more republicans outside the uniparty. The uniparty supports the MIC and the IC.
The mic product is billable hours.
Speaker is almost always the last vote for procedural reasons. Everything i read was it was 212 to 212 prior to his vote as the last vote.
Here is a link to the actual recorded vote: https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2024/roll114.xml
It seems pretty clear that Speaker Johnson's vote was one of the 212 against, and that had he not voted, the measure would have passed 212 to 211.
"And he can’t even tell us why, since the briefing that “changed his mind” was classified."
It was a video call with an FBI agent who happened to be standing in his kitchen with a gun to his wife's head.
Good point!
It's hard not to wonder whether there was some kind of coordination between the two party's "whips" to allocate certain votes and to determine the non-voters in order to achieve the result of an exact tie from a congress where 90% or more of non-trivial legislative activity seems to result in near-perfect party-line voting
Yes. Johnson needs to go.
Hey, ENB, what does this incident tell you about your precious Democrats and RINOs? Are you learning anything? Ditto for the other Reason writers and editors. These guys, no matter how much they may like some of what you like, are no friends to freedom, liberty, due process, and the Constitution; hence, they stand up there as authoritarian, not libertarian.
Don't worry. Reason will continue to attack those who try to disrupt business as usual operations of government as uncivil.
Wait ... what? You mean you're not buying the "lesser of two evils" meme?!
Not sure you understood his post. He called out dems and the uniparty GOP.
ENB won’t learn a goddamned thing. And we still still don’t have our sandwiches.
Bitch needs to get the lead out.
Yeah, what was the point of changing the speaker? Budget still growing, establishment bullshit like this still passes.
"Here's a brilliantly sharp photo of you in flagrante delicto with one of our expert undercover honey traps, Mister Speaker. Be a shame if this fell into the wrong hands, wouldn't it? Now about that 'warrant' nonsense ..."
But it was largely Democrats who sank the warrant requirement. House Democrats voted against the measure 84–126, while Republicans voted for the measure 128–86.
Ain’t that tossing a monkey wrench into the whole narrative.
How so?
What part of both sides are equally bad dont you get?
Oh dang. I read that backwards. Thought the bill was reauthorizing warrantless searches, not requiring warrants. Whoops.
LOL
Haven't you been commenting about this bill for the last couple days?
I suppose that reinforced the narrative?
The problem of alcoholic amnesia is he doesn't remember past this morning.
It ties into his brain shrinkage.
"Haven’t you been commenting about this bill for the last couple days?"
Yes, yes he has.
Heh. So what does that tell you about the RINOs and most Democrats, Sarc? They are not, have never been, and never will be anything remotely libertarian in any way, shape, or form ever.
You also do realize there is one presidential candidate right now who also is against these 4A violations, right? Hint, it’s not Sleepy Joe.
Trump is against it for the wrong reasons, so doesn’t count. Narrative safe.
-sarc
Double, triple and quadruple negatives are a real bitch, ain't dey?
Moron.
Did facts change?
The narrative that Democrats are horrible on everything, even the shit they pretend to be good on?
Why did Reason change the graphic for this story? It was originally a cartoon girl with a laptop.
Today, the 4th amendment was declared dead and buried, by the Washington DC UniParty.
Dude, it's been dead for a long time. The final death blow was in 1976 when the Supremes created the third-party-doctrine.
It doesn’t mean Congress can’t fix it.
Well sarcasmic, now you can stick a fork in it = 4A is dead 🙂
We will regret not standing up for 4A.
Yeah, and you exalt the scumbags that are making it worse and trash anyone who might make it even a little bit better.
Seriously, fuck you and your phony ‘libertarianism’.
Even before that. I'd argue that the income tax amendment (where the government gets to look into everyone's books sans warrant) ended that constitutional protection.
Well, at least they didn't put a stake through its heart - - - - - - - -
OMG!
Is this some kind of Freudian slip, a longing for the days of George III?
I guess being able to snoop on your enemies is more important than protecting your constituents. Thanks a lot. I expect so little from politicians, and yet they still manage to disappoint.
I guess being able to snoop on your enemies is more important than protecting your constituents
Constituents = enemies.
Wrong place
212 -212? Worked out ahead of time I guess.
How else are they going to sic the agents of the state on Trump and his kind?
Btw, thanks for rubber stamping this in 2018 Trump, you fucking retard.
MWAocdoc sings, "Say hello to the new Speaker ... same as the old Speaker ... a little bit older and a whole lot corrupter ..."
The IRS is using AI to spy on your bank account.
Wasn't there some ruling a while back saying it wasn't spying if it was a computer?
The government will use AI in the future to examine every electronic trail you leave and report anything outside of desired parameters.
MAGA Republicans have been the ones leading the charge for Section 702 reform
I'm guessing you poured your first chardonnay of the weekend to cry into after typing that. Don't worry. I'm sure you can at least take a little bit of solace in "they didn't do it for the right reasons".
I suspect that the only reason MAGA Republicans were pro reform was their belief that Trump was a victim. I doubt they'd have any issue if Trump and his team could be exempt.
Nonetheless, I will not commit a version of the genetic fallacy. This time, they are right and the Democrats are wrong.
So, "they didn't do it for the right reasons" it is.
I'm happy as hell to see the MAGA right starting to see the truth. I can't imagine why any libertarian wouldn't be.
Don't worry. Democrats are wrong but have good intentions. So nobody is truly right or wrong here.
Nope. Democrats are wrong and MAGA are right.
So why didn't you say that prior to making excuses?
Lol, you literally predicted the cope and gov’na shrike went right ahead and did it. Haha shrike, you’re a dipshit.
Guv’na Shrike is no libertarian.
This is just as retarded as when sarc screams it.
Is this part of the left talking points?
Nonetheless, I will not commit a version of the genetic fallacy. This time, they are right and the Democrats are wrong.
Except you already did shrike.
Still not shrike, you lying POS.
And I clearly did not commit the genetic fallacy - which would have been to disagree with the MAGA Republicans on this particular case simply because of their being MAGA Republicans. Learn the meaning of terms before you make your argument.
Poor shrike
You just put up the argument to deflect.
Like when shrike defends all of Joe's policies and then at the end says he doesn't support Joe.
You still made the argument. Just too chicken shit to want to own it.
Whatever you say shrike.
You think the FBI give two fucks about warrants?
No, but at least now they don't have to waste all that time pretending.
So ENB the question remains.
Do you side with the party that wants states to decide weather it’s legal to kill a baby(there is a difference between legal and moral) , or do you side with the party that wants to end totalitarian fascism?
Edit: this is not d VS r. This is globalist v Americans
... "part of reigning in an unaccountable FBI and "deep state."
Oh come on, Elizabeth. Correct your spelling!
No kidding misspelled words is my territory!
Every Democrat, "It was ALL TRUMPS FAULT!!!!"
lmao. Enter Boehm
https://reason.com/2024/04/15/donald-trumps-cowardice-over-warrantless-spying/