Is the Patriot Act unconstitutional?

[Rob Lister]

I have heard many posters on many boards claim that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. Everytime I have asked for clarification I have been given generalizations at best or just told to read it for myself. I did just that. I read it and dang'd if I can find anything in it that is decidedly unconstitutional. Still, since so many people claim it is unconstitutional, it must be true, right?

I've got an open mind. I am asking in an unbiased manner. I'm a lump of clay; mold me!

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I have heard many posters on many boards claim that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. Everytime I have asked for clarification I have been given generalizations at best or just told to read it for myself. I did just that. I read it and dang'd if I can find anything in it that is decidedly unconstitutional. Still, since so many people claim it is unconstitutional, it must be true, right?

I've got an open mind. I am asking in an unbiased manner. I'm a lump of clay; mold me!

Let me put it this way, its about as unconstitutional as the RICO act. Mind you, that isn't a big endorsement.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I have heard many posters on many boards claim that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. Everytime I have asked for clarification I have been given generalizations at best or just told to read it for myself. I did just that. I read it and dang'd if I can find anything in it that is decidedly unconstitutional. Still, since so many people claim it is unconstitutional, it must be true, right?

I've got an open mind. I am asking in an unbiased manner. I'm a lump of clay; mold me!

Three choices for 'yes' - not enough options for 'no'.

I vote 'no' with the reason that I haven't been convinced that 'yes' is the truth, not with the reason that I know that it is constitutional.

MattJ

[shanek]

http://lincoln.lpnc.org/lincoln/supporting-patriot.html

[jj]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I ... or just told to read it for myself. I did just that. I read it and dang'd if I can find anything in it that is decidedly unconstitutional.

Are you an expert in the field?

[TragicMonkey]

How about a position where you think parts of it are unconstitutional, but don't care? By which I mean, yeah it curtails some rights, but it's justifiable?

Not that that's my position, necessarily. I just would like to see more "willfully choosing what we believe to be wrong because it's expedient" choices in politics.

[shanek]

Okay, unlike most claims, this is one where the negative can be EASILY tested: just look at each part of the Act and find where the Constitution grants the Federal government that power. Yes, I know, it's long, so why don't we just start with Section 215?

[evildave]

While most elements are not unconstitutional, writing a law making driving your own car illegal is not unconstitutional, either.

The 'Act' is actually a lot of changes to a lot of laws. Although sections of the act could be stricken down, other portions will stick.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by jj
Are you an expert in the field?

Decidedly NOT. That's why I'm asking.

[Nasarius]

Take a look at previous Supreme Court cases dealing with the right to privacy, then compare it to the PATRIOT Act.

In particular, the ACLU has challenged Section 215.
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130

[Rob Lister]

So far I have one yes (first option) vote but still lack the exact statute and reasoning. You don't have to be verbose, at least not at first.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
So far I have one yes (first option) vote but still lack the exact statute and reasoning. You don't have to be verbose, at least not at first.

I voted for the second option, but then I changed my mind and provided some information anyway.
So it wasn't me! :p

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Three choices for 'yes' - not enough options for 'no'.

I vote 'no' with the reason that I haven't been convinced that 'yes' is the truth, not with the reason that I know that it is constitutional.

MattJ

Can a moderator please change the last option to:

No, or not as far as I know.

Pretty please. Cherry on top type.

[waitew]

I'm so torn!!I'm so torn!!The ACLU's pizzia palour video did it for me.The Democrats are socialists But I don't want to live in a 1984 like police state either.There is no good choice in this election.Maybe i just wont vote.

[ssibal]

I do not recall the Supreme Court ruling it to be unconstitutional, and they are the only ones that can make that determination.

[Blue Monk]

Just in case anyone is interested I have posted the Patriot Act in pdf format on my website where you can read it online or download it.

Patriot Act (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/Patriot Act.pdf)

I admit that I have yet to read it all the way through but perhaps now I'll finally print it out and actually read it, hehe.

Upon a quick once over it is apparent the most of it at least is pretty reasonable stuff but there are some things that are disturbing but I am going to refrain from posting specifics until I have the opportunity to give it a closer look.

[Roadtoad]

Not a particularly specific point, but have you considered the fact that we've yet to see this in any other form, without the "Changed to..." and "Amended to read...."? This makes the whole damn thing very confusing.

But then, I would suspect that was the idea from the get-go.

By the way: Anyone else notice that when Clinton first proposed this damn thing, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were vehemently opposed to it. But when Bush came up with practically the SAME BILL, it was OKAY!?!?

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by ssibal
I do not recall the Supreme Court ruling it to be unconstitutional, and they are the only ones that can make that determination.

True but they do not seek out documents to rule on but rather wait until it is brought before the court so just because it has not been ruled unconstitutional yet does not prohibit the possibility that it may, or perhaps more likely specific portions, be ruled unconstitutional in the future.

They have ruled on some aspects in that they ruled that despite what was outlined in the act the Government cannot hold detainees indefinitely without legal counsel.

They’re ruling was still rather vague in that it did not set any specific time limits.

I do know of one American that was being held who filed suit to try and force the government to reveal the evidence it had against him. He was subsequently released (probably due to a weak case against him) and the action never actually ended up before the court. This is all from memory so I may have many details wrong and I do not have a link handy but I believe this is essentially correct.

Perhaps someone else knows what I’m talking about and can fill the story in a bit.

[shanek]

Originally posted by evildave
While most elements are not unconstitutional, writing a law making driving your own car illegal is not unconstitutional, either.

It is if the Feds do it; nothing in the Constitution gives them that power.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
So far I have one yes (first option) vote but still lack the exact statute and reasoning.

Yes, you do. Check my link.

[shanek]

Originally posted by waitew
I'm so torn!!I'm so torn!!The ACLU's pizzia palour video did it for me.The Democrats are socialists But I don't want to live in a 1984 like police state either.There is no good choice in this election.

Sure, there is. (www.badnarik.org)

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
I do not recall the Supreme Court ruling it to be unconstitutional, and they are the only ones that can make that determination.

No, they aren't. The Constitutions says what the Supreme Court is. It's circular reasoning to say the Supreme Court gets to say what the Constitution is, at least exclusively.

WE THE PEOPLE wrote the Constitution. So WE THE PEOPLE get to say what's Constitutional and what isn't.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Not a particularly specific point, but have you considered the fact that we've yet to see this in any other form, without the "Changed to..." and "Amended to read...."? This makes the whole damn thing very confusing.

Exactly. I went through the same thing when I was writing the above site I linked to. It took me FOUR DAYS to go through the whole thing, because it's not just a matter of reading the USA PATRIOT Act, it's a matter of referencing the existing laws that it modifies and amends.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by corplinx
Let me put it this way, its about as unconstitutional as the RICO act. Mind you, that isn't a big endorsement.

That is about right I think.

The real answer I would say is who knows. I think that the cases that finally decide whether this mess is constitutional are going to say as much about the nuances of the constitution as they will about the patriot act. Since our courts only speak when there is an issue arising out of a dispute, all the principles that have arisen in the body of the law handed down by the Supreme court can fairly be said to be as much the product of the controversy as the constitution.

That's why who knows. The exact principles that will guide the decision are not set in stone, and largely depend on the theoretical bent of the justices deciding the issue. Just as the Rico act, or the New Deal, or the war on drugs resulted in new "constitutional" principles, so will this.

[merphie]

Originally posted by ssibal
I do not recall the Supreme Court ruling it to be unconstitutional, and they are the only ones that can make that determination.

There is a last ditch effort that can be made. A constitutional convention can be called by the states to over rule it. But it requires a majority of the states to even call it.

I think more so that it is unconstitutional because it doesn't clearly define what a terrorist is and under what conditions. So they can declare anyone they want as a terrorist.

I have heard it has been used on drug dealers. I haven't found any sources for it yet.

[gnome]

Here's one:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/

no section name, but I feel the subject matter to be specific enough to find the exact provision.

Another one that interests me:

Section 218 (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/USAPA.asp)

A good example of the kind of change brought about under the USAPA, which illustrates the underlying and pre-existing agenda of its proponents, is section 218, which amends a single phrase in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The purpose of FISA was to allow intelligence agencies to gather information about foreign powers without the restrictions imposed on them by the Constitution. The reasoning for this was that the purpose of foreign intelligence gathering is not to detect crimes but to gather information about foreign agents.

Under FISA, when an agent wanted to obtain authority to conduct electronic surveillance or secret physical searches, a designated official of the executive office had to certify that "the purpose" for the surveillance was to obtain foreign intelligence information. Section 218 of the USAPA modifies that clause so that intelligence gathering need not be "the purpose," - in other words, it need no longer be the primary purpose, -- but may be only "a significant purpose" of the surveillance.

This means that if an official can certify that obtaining foreign intelligence is a significant purpose of a surveillance action (the other purpose clearly being criminal investigation), he can avoid the requirement that he first show probable cause of criminal activity. It means the FBI, the CIA, or any other intelligence agency, can surveil you without probable cause, as long as they say the surveillance has something to do with a foreign intelligence investigation of some sort (which may otherwise not even involve you directly).

Because courts have consistently refused to "second guess" FISA surveillance certifications, there is effectively no judicial review of such activities. This small change has enormous ramifications. For all practical purposes, the section 218 USAPA amendment of FISA allows government to completely avoid Fourth Amendment probable cause requirements for searches and seizures of American citizens (not just immigrants).

I have always had a problem with "magic words" powers-- and in this case all they've got to do is just SAY they're investigating someone for something having to do with a foreign intelligence investigation--they need provide no details... and the 4th amendment then goes out the window.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by gnome
Here's one:

.....

I have always had a problem with "magic words" powers-- and in this case all they've got to do is just SAY they're investigating someone for something having to do with a foreign intelligence investigation--they need provide no details... and the 4th amendment then goes out the window.


Thank you gnome. That was what I was looking for. I did have a bit of a question, which you may or may not know the answer to, concerning the last paragraph...

Because courts have consistently refused to "second guess" FISA surveillance certifications, there is effectively no judicial review of such activities. This small change has enormous ramifications. For all practical purposes, the section 218 USAPA amendment of FISA allows government to completely avoid Fourth Amendment probable cause requirements for searches and seizures of American citizens (not just immigrants).

Now, without the text of the act in front of, as well as a team of lawyer-types directing us to and fro, it's hard to tell what that analysis really means. If the courts are not doing their job then that is not necessarily the fault of the law. If you don't see what I'm getting at I'll try to state it differently.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Now, without the text of the act in front of, as well as a team of lawyer-types directing us to and fro, it's hard to tell what that analysis really means. If the courts are not doing their job then that is not necessarily the fault of the law. If you don't see what I'm getting at I'll try to state it differently.

Maybe there are no cases that would challenge it. Or the cases exists but they have no rights.

I have to think that because some Gitmo prisoners were able to get some council that there may not be any cases.

After all, as skeptics don't we have to assume that the government may not be as bad as it seems? (without Proof of wrong doing?)

Some would argu (Hopefully not here) that Rosewell did happen and the government just covered it up?

They did handle it poorly.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by merphie
Some would argu (Hopefully not here) that Rosewell did happen and the government just covered it up?

They did handle it poorly.

If you knew what really happened, like I do, you might say they handled it brilliantly.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
If you knew what really happened, like I do, you might say they handled it brilliantly.

OK, tell me. Show me the evidence. I would love to know.