« Wyoming expands its library confidentiality law | Main | Open Access Law Program, a part of the Science Commons publishing project, supports "open access" to legal scholarship »


From http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR02862:@@@S:

"6/15/2005 3:31pm: H.AMDT.280 Amendment (A033) offered by Mr. Sanders. (consideration: CR H4534-4542, H4551; text: CR H4534) An amendment numbered 15 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to implement provisions of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act which permits searches of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)."

There's a lot of sloppily written news on that vote going around today. The ACLU's press release has more accurate information than most. As I understand it (not being a lawyer), the bill doesn't change what law enforcement agencies can legally do under Section 215, except by not allowing them to spend money to do it. This seems to say that a library or bookstore presented with an FBI order would still have to comply with it, even though it should be theoretically impossible to obtain such an order.

This is a great start. To prevent a presidential veto, or make it politically unlikely, you would have to have over a two-thirds majority. It takes a two-third majority of the members present (assuming a quorum) of both the Senate and the House to overcome a veto. If everyone was present, since there are 434 members of the House, it would take 287 votes in the House. Since there are 100 members of the Senate, it would take 67 votes in the Senate. However, not everyone is usually present, so the actual numbers would vary.

The comments to this entry are closed.