The Constitutinality of the patriot act

[ihopehefails]

I don't know what parts of the patriot act the left is up in arms about since all they do is scream patriot act violates the constitution but I've read the 5h amendment and it gives an exception to due process of law.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

It says here that there are exceptions to the rule that I believe many anti-patriot act people believe invalidates it but under these circumstances, and I believe that a foreign organization has declared war on the US, it is exceptable.

Discuss...

 

[kyzr]

Who gives a fig what the left whines about?
The problem is that Napolitano just doesn't get The Patriot Act, yet she's in-charge of your families' security.
If you want to hit a hot button or two talk about FISA and how the left doesn't want guys like the FT Hood shooter caught before he kills after talking to his radical overseas emam.
Any other whiny Patriot Act issues?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[youtube]kNRSs6LsGeI[/youtube]

 

[kyzr]

Look at it this way. The left has an unstoppable majority in both houses, so if there were any provisions of the Patriot Act that were bad, they could fix them. Apparently, the dems/left like the Patriot Act just the way it is, or they wouldn't be worried about C+T, and UHC, and some of the other bullshit priorities they are working on.
They had their shot at governing, and they failed. Next....

 

[Toome]

There are a lot of misconceptions about the PATRIOT Act. The majority of it is a pretty dull procedural outline of how the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies plan to exchange information. While it changed certain policies, such as expanding the definition of terrorism and updating electronic surveillance to apply to modern conveniences such as wireless telephones, it stays within constitutional boundaries. Even so, it is not immune to revision by Congress nor is it exempt from legal challenges that may eventually make its way to the Supreme Court. The PATRIOT Act does not overturn any provision of the Constitution.

Is the PATRIOT Act perfect? Hell, no. Should some of it be changed? Probably. And that's what the legal process allows. Whenever a case arises with a legal controversy connected directly to the words in the PATRIOT Act, magistrates can certainly allow a legal challenge of that law. That's how the system works.

A lot of this is just partisan emotionalism from both sides.

 

[roho331]

I personally, do not want my rights suspended because someone believes there is a public danger, unless there is good reason to believe that I AM THAT PUBLIC DANGER. That being said, I still would like the opportunity to prove that my government is wrong about me.

Those who defend The Patriot Act by stating simply that "oh well I have nothing to hide ... so, no problem" probably THINK SIMPLY as well. Those of us with a more common first and last name ought to be more concerned with mistaken identity and envision how their life would be if the mistake happened to them.

As a case in point, there are many people -- solid citizens, who have been denied the ability to fly because they have the first and last name as someone who legitimately should be on the "no fly list". Unbelievably this all-important list exists, but WITHOUT ACCOMPANYING PICTURES! The government is sorely lacking yet, has no plans to correct this glaring oversight.

In times when Public Danger seems both immanent and wide spread, people panic, and may mistakenly report anyone to the government. I think the key is for me to assume that some grave identity mistake (one not even connected to "identity theft") could happen to me, or one of my friends.

So let's have this incompetent government put the grab on me, suspend my due process, and spirit me away to prison in an "unknown country" for interrogation. No, not this American citizen; for I believe in the Second Amendment (another argument ... later)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Look at it this way. The left has an unstoppable majority in both houses, so if there were any provisions of the Patriot Act that were bad, they could fix them. Apparently, the dems/left like the Patriot Act just the way it is, or they wouldn't be worried about C+T, and UHC, and some of the other bullshit priorities they are working on.
They had their shot at governing, and they failed. Next....

I agree. My guess is most Democrats, at least those Democrats who are politicians, were only worried about the Patriot Act under the Republicans.

 

[ihopehefails]

I personally, do not want my rights suspended because someone believes there is a public danger, unless there is good reason to believe that I AM THAT PUBLIC DANGER. That being said, I still would like the opportunity to prove that my government is wrong about me.

Those who defend The Patriot Act by stating simply that "oh well I have nothing to hide ... so, no problem" probably THINK SIMPLY as well. Those of us with a more common first and last name ought to be more concerned with mistaken identity and envision how their life would be if the mistake happened to them.

As a case in point, there are many people -- solid citizens, who have been denied the ability to fly because they have the first and last name as someone who legitimately should be on the "no fly list". Unbelievably this all-important list exists, but WITHOUT ACCOMPANYING PICTURES! The government is sorely lacking yet, has no plans to correct this glaring oversight.

In times when Public Danger seems both immanent and wide spread, people panic, and may mistakenly report anyone to the government. I think the key is for me to assume that some grave identity mistake (one not even connected to "identity theft") could happen to me, or one of my friends.

So let's have this incompetent government put the grab on me, suspend my due process, and spirit me away to prison in an "unknown country" for interrogation. No, not this American citizen; for I believe in the Second Amendment (another argument ... later)

You might be correct but is it unconstitutional?

Also, a court could decide that such and such was not taken away for constitutional reasons and order the government to put that person back. The court never lost any power over that in anything the Bush administration did. It did not find a sufficient reason to strike anything down.

 

[ihopehefails]

[youtube]kNRSs6LsGeI[/youtube]

I don't agree with The Judge (as I call him) on this. I think the writers of the constitution were wise enough to know that there will be situations where public safety takes precedence over due process such as witnessing a crime in progress or an invading soldier needs to be held.

 

[kyzr]

One of my favorite quotes to those overly concerned with mis-interpreting the Constitution is that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact". Those giving enemy combatants citizenship rights are mis-guided to say the least.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

I think it is unconstitutional.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Parts of it were found Unconstitutional othe rparts not. You think it is unconstitutional? Take it to Court.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I don't know what parts of the patriot act the left is up in arms about since all they do is scream patriot act violates the constitution but I've read the 5h amendment and it gives an exception to due process of law.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

It says here that there are exceptions to the rule that I believe many anti-patriot act people believe invalidates it but under these circumstances, and I believe that a foreign organization has declared war on the US, it is exceptable.

Discuss...

It is my understanding that there are the patriot acts, not the patriot act.

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I doubt).

d.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I...but under these circumstances, and I believe that a foreign organization has declared war on the US, it is exceptable.

Discuss...

If you can find the term ''foreign organization'' in the US Constitution, you are a better man than I.

 

[uptownlivin90]

From what I remember it wasn't just so-called liberals "screaming about it" and it still isn't... and alot of so-called liberals in the congress supported it, so it's no surprise that the democrats HAVEN'T done anything about it, because there's no unified party stance on it. The issue of national security over civil liberties is not a left-right issue at all. As for the Patriot Act, unconstitutional or not I'm vehemently opposed.

 

[Immanuel]

From what I remember it wasn't just so-called liberals "screaming about it" and it still isn't... and alot of so-called liberals in the congress supported it, so it's no surprise that the democrats HAVEN'T done anything about it, because there's no unified party stance on it. The issue of national security over civil liberties is not a left-right issue at all. As for the Patriot Act, unconstitutional or not I'm vehemently opposed.

I screamed about it from the very beginning. I am not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't care whether it is unconstitutional or not. My problem with it was the powers granted to government minimizing our protections against that government. I worried not only about the then current administration, but future administrations as well. It seems to me that I had every reason to be concerned as a new party leads this country today and that party is reveling in the gifts given it by the previous administration. It can only get worse from here.

Immie

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Parts of it were found Unconstitutional othe rparts not. You think it is unconstitutional? Take it to Court.

Yeah, because the courts stop every law that isn't Constitutional.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

For those against the patriot Act a simple question: Precisely what freedoms of yours (specifically yours) have been enfringed upon since the inception of the first patriot Act?

-TSO

 

[uscitizen]

I think maybe Ron Paul was the only republican to vote against the Patriot Act.

Maybe 2-3 more.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

For those against the patriot Act a simple question: Precisely what freedoms of yours (specifically yours) have been enfringed upon since the inception of the first patriot Act?

-TSO

Don't be an obtuse jackass. Your point is meaningless.