The House has extended the Patriot Act

[Ringel05]

That's a rather esoteric answer which is appropriate and applicable in an academic debate setting.

I'm the hopeful sort Ringel.......

How about concrete specifics of that aspect you brought up in the previous post which offers proof of your assertion.

It takes time and effort, google up material support if you have either (which i'm a tad short on at the moment)

you see, those subtle little legislative changes can amount to monumental impact on the 'law' and those charged with it's administration.

so what we would boil down to is thier institution vs. their application

i mean, they always do in these debates, don't they?

that said, choosing a stance is simply a matter of which is more offensive.

Myself you ask? well, i find a rather wide practice / preach chasm committing our brave men and women to upholding a fundamental in the line of fire, while we cower behind security engineered to dismantle it

I see what you're saying but I've also seen constitutional law eventually win out far to often to lose faith just yet. If it's challengable it will be challenged, especially if enough people get fed up, of course then the courts aren't required, the newly elected and/or "reformed" politicians will vote to amend or repeal. The pendulum always seems to find a way to swing back.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's a rather esoteric answer which is appropriate and applicable in an academic debate setting.

I'm the hopeful sort Ringel.......

How about concrete specifics of that aspect you brought up in the previous post which offers proof of your assertion.

It takes time and effort, google up material support if you have either (which i'm a tad short on at the moment)

you see, those subtle little legislative changes can amount to monumental impact on the 'law' and those charged with it's administration.

so what we would boil down to is thier institution vs. their application

i mean, they always do in these debates, don't they?

that said, choosing a stance is simply a matter of which is more offensive.

Myself you ask? well, i find a rather wide practice / preach chasm committing our brave men and women to upholding a fundamental in the line of fire, while we cower behind security engineered to dismantle it

I see what you're saying but I've also seen constitutional law eventually win out far to often to lose faith just yet. If it's challengable it will be challenged, especially if enough people get fed up, of course then the courts aren't required, the newly elected and/or "reformed" politicians will vote to amend or repeal. The pendulum always seems to find a way to swing back.

A citizen of the United States can not be stripped of his rights even by the Patriot act. Already been to the Courts and already been decided. The claim that the President can simply declare Joe Schmuck a terrorist is simply not true. The Courts have ruled on it. All rights of a US Citizen are protected. They all get their many days in Court.

 

[editec]

With broad bipartisan support, right?

Yeah there's a huge difference between those parties, isn't there?

 

[Ringel05]

I'm the hopeful sort Ringel.......




It takes time and effort, google up material support if you have either (which i'm a tad short on at the moment)

you see, those subtle little legislative changes can amount to monumental impact on the 'law' and those charged with it's administration.

so what we would boil down to is thier institution vs. their application

i mean, they always do in these debates, don't they?

that said, choosing a stance is simply a matter of which is more offensive.

Myself you ask? well, i find a rather wide practice / preach chasm committing our brave men and women to upholding a fundamental in the line of fire, while we cower behind security engineered to dismantle it

I see what you're saying but I've also seen constitutional law eventually win out far to often to lose faith just yet. If it's challengable it will be challenged, especially if enough people get fed up, of course then the courts aren't required, the newly elected and/or "reformed" politicians will vote to amend or repeal. The pendulum always seems to find a way to swing back.

A citizen of the United States can not be stripped of his rights even by the Patriot act. Already been to the Courts and already been decided. The claim that the President can simply declare Joe Schmuck a terrorist is simply not true. The Courts have ruled on it. All rights of a US Citizen are protected. They all get their many days in Court.

I'm not saying any different.