• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.
The federal government apologized and settled part of the lawsuit for $2 million after admitting a fingerprint was misread. But as part of the settlement, Mayfield retained the right to challenge parts of the Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the authority of law enforcers to investigate suspected acts of terrorism.
Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his house and office under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Aiken agreed with Mayfield, repeatedly criticizing the government.

"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.
By asking her to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general's office was "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."

Elden Rosenthal, an attorney for Mayfield, issued a statement on his behalf praising the judge, saying she "has upheld both the tradition of judicial independence, and our nation's most cherished principle of the right to be secure in one's own home."
Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said the agency was reviewing the decision, and he declined to comment further.


Read more @: Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional - US news - Security - msnbc.comk so it seems that one part of the Patriot Act is about to hit the dust, so i ask can we just get rid of the whole thing? All the bleeding heart conservatives and consitutionalists on the right can we get rid of this whole bill yet? I mean it seems to be a bill that ACTUALLY IS very unconstitutional.

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?


 
About time. The "Patriot Act" is one of the great misnomers of our time.
 
It doesn't really mean anything until it reaches the SC and that is assuming the SC actually agrees with a lower court ruling.
 
O]Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional - US news - Security - msnbc.com[/url]k so it seems that one part of the Patriot Act is about to hit the dust, so i ask can we just get rid of the whole thing? All the bleeding heart conservatives and consitutionalists on the right can we get rid of this whole bill yet? I mean it seems to be a bill that ACTUALLY IS very unconstitutional.

No, because 90% or more of it is solid, sound, and good law that in this hyper partisan, hyper charged world we live in today likely would not be repassed and would create more issues. Even years after the Patriot Act you still had Democratic Senators admitting to that much in Russ Fiengold. Our primary intelligence law was written in a time where the notion of a cell phone was science fiction...let alone things like smart phones, netbooks, the world wide web, forums, blogs, instant messaging, chat rooms, text messaging, twittering, wifi, 4g, and on and on. Gobs of loopholes, both helping criminals AND helping the government violate our rights, were found in the law because there was a grey area the size of ****ing texas when it came to the various technologies we have today as compared to the 1960's. By and Large the Patriot Act helped update our intelligence laws to the 21st century so that those loopholes and grey areas were removed and it was somewhat codified.

For the other portions of it that are problematic, they are being dealt with through the vast various measures we already have in place thanks to our founding. The Supreme Court has been stripping more and more of the questionable parts of the Act away as we move further away from the impetus which tipped the balance of demand from freedom to security. Various sunsets in the act has caused other portions to come up for a second vote and not be extended. Additional bills cancelling out portions of it can be passed. All of these are good and proper ways to deal with it.

What we do not need to do is take a battle axe to the arm because a finger needs to be amputated. We don't need to destroy the vast majority of the bill which is sound, useful, helpful law because a small part of it is problematic. Perhaps if we did not have other methods in place to remove those peices that would be the preferable option, but that simply isn't the case.
 
my problem with the PA is that if the fourth amendment is the problem, the constitutional way to fix it is to add an exemption for terrorism. this would be very difficult to do, as amending should be. the probable cause requirement for issuing a warrant cannot be removed through simple legislation. this has been done in both the drug war and the WOT, though, and no court seems to want to address it.

do i want the country to suffer through more terror attacks? of course not. but i just don't believe that demonstrating probable cause is too much of an impediment.

it seems to me that the best way to prevent terror, at least from the middle east, is to end our reliance on oil and to scale down interventionism. we have plenty to do right here at home, and not a lot of money to do it with.
 
Man, the SS/Brownshirts are going to be ticked at this!
 
There are a lot of provisions in the Patriot Act that directly contradict the fourth amendment protections against search and seizure without probable cause. There have already been a substantial number of limitations on it stemming from the 1960s and 70s as drug prohibition get into full swing, many of which really don't follow the intent of the amendment.

The real issues that makes the Patriot Act and its ilk to abhorrent is the secrecy aspect, and the lack of checks and balances. Not requiring probable cause and a warrant removes the need for an investigator to have their suspicions vetted. A judge will be able to look at the evidence and say "yeah, that's reasonable", or "you've got nothing, I won't allow you to harass these innocent people." It is that harassment that the fourth amendment protects us from. Instead, suspicions are kept secret, and not overseen by our justice system. Innocent people are spied on, harassed, or even arrested without proper legal authorization. The fourth amendment guarantees that in order to treat a person like a criminal, there must be probable cause that such a person IS a criminal. That's the requirement. Any law that abridges that requirement is unconstitutional.
 
I think the entire Patriot Act should be tossed. This was a huge document waiting in the wings when 9/11 happened. That makes me suspicious. It wasn't reactive but existed in a proactive initiation just waiting for an accelerator to get it going. I may just be frustrated but feel overwhelmed by gov't. That would be well-paid, even highly-paid gov't. Actually I was ashamed of our country under Bush, am frustrated and disappointed and ashamed (Libya) under BHO, and the horizons seem to reveal a dismal future. Hope is not on the horizon.
 
Read more @: Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional - US news - Security - msnbc.comk so it seems that one part of the Patriot Act is about to hit the dust, so i ask can we just get rid of the whole thing? All the bleeding heart conservatives and consitutionalists on the right can we get rid of this whole bill yet? I mean it seems to be a bill that ACTUALLY IS very unconstitutional.

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response? [/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

It's a start, but it won't be good until the whole of the patriot act is overturned.
 
my problem with the PA is that if the fourth amendment is the problem, the constitutional way to fix it is to add an exemption for terrorism. this would be very difficult to do, as amending should be. the probable cause requirement for issuing a warrant cannot be removed through simple legislation. this has been done in both the drug war and the WOT, though, and no court seems to want to address it.

do i want the country to suffer through more terror attacks? of course not. but i just don't believe that demonstrating probable cause is too much of an impediment.

it seems to me that the best way to prevent terror, at least from the middle east, is to end our reliance on oil and to scale down interventionism. we have plenty to do right here at home, and not a lot of money to do it with.

There shouldn't be "exemptions" to due process.
 
Read more @: Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional - US news - Security - msnbc.comk so it seems that one part of the Patriot Act is about to hit the dust, so i ask can we just get rid of the whole thing? All the bleeding heart conservatives and consitutionalists on the right can we get rid of this whole bill yet? I mean it seems to be a bill that ACTUALLY IS very unconstitutional.

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response? [/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

The Patriot Act was adopted to help untie law-enforcement's hands and keep us safe. The CIA has always had all the powers in that act and probably more. There is no way we should throw out the entire Patriot Act. That's what we have a Supreme Court for -- to put checks and balances on our laws, rules and regulations. Tweak it. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
 
The Patriot Act was adopted to help untie law-enforcement's hands and keep us safe. The CIA has always had all the powers in that act and probably more. There is no way we should throw out the entire Patriot Act. That's what we have a Supreme Court for -- to put checks and balances on our laws, rules and regulations. Tweak it. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

This ain't a baby, it's a manbearpig and should be drowned in the water first before we throw it out.
 
Here's my take on this:

It's about 2 things: Power, and how government views it's citizens. This can be broken down into Republican and Democratic views on American citizens.

1) Republican - Citizens must be continually watched, and deprived of their rights. Although they push for smaller government, they are in favor of a large government police state that must repress freedom. The Patriot Act is an example of this. I call this "Fatherland".

2) Democratic - Citizens must be continually protected from themselves, and deprived of their rights. They push for larger government that must repress freedom, in the name of protecting it's citizens. Obama's mandate for insurance coverage is an example of this. I call this "Motherland".

But whether Fatherland or Motherland, our founding fathers would call it "Crazyland". The laws that BOTH parties push, for their own ideological reasons, are patently unconstitutional. But as long as the government can keep us divided into "Red" and "Blue", condemning what the other guys do, but fully supporting what their own guys do, the government wins. Divide and conquor, folks. That's the name of this game.
 
The laws that BOTH parties push, for their own ideological reasons, are patently unconstitutional. But as long as the government can keep us divided into "Red" and "Blue", condemning what the other guys do, but fully supporting what their own guys do, the government wins. Divide and conquor, folks. That's the name of this game.

Don't kid yourself. It's not about ideology. It's about money, power and re-election. Mr. Smith is dead.
 
There shouldn't be "exemptions" to due process.

i agree. i was speaking in the theoretical : if due process were to be removed, it would have to be done via the amendment process. simple legislation cannot rewrite the constitution. the patriot act attempts to do just this, as do many pieces of legislation dealing with the failed drug war.
 
This ain't a baby, it's a manbearpig and should be drowned in the water first before we throw it out.

What's wrong with these things:

Those who operate or own a "protected computer" can give permission for authorities to intercept communications carried out on the machine, thus bypassing the requirements of the Wiretap statute.[
. . . like a library computer. . . a company-owned computer. Oh, wow!! Such an infringement!! Not.

This?

Financial institutions must now undertake steps to identify the owners of any privately owned bank outside the U.S. who have a correspondent account with them, along with the interests of each of the owners in the bank. It is expected that additional scrutiny will be applied by the U.S. institution to such banks to make sure they are not engaging in money laundering. Bank must identify all the nominal and beneficial owners of any private bank account opened and maintained in the U.S. by non-U.S. citizens.

OMG!!! I have to provide two types of identification to open a bank account!!

The definition of money laundering was expanded to include making a financial transaction in the U.S. in order to commit a violent crime. The bribery of public officials and fraudulent dealing with public funds; the smuggling or illegal export of controlled munition[65] and the importation or bringing in of any firearm or ammunition not authorized by the U.S. Attorney General[66] and the smuggling of any item controlled under the Export Administration Regulations.

The Act also introduced criminal penalties for corrupt officialdom. An official or employee of the government who acts corruptly — as well as the person who induces the corrupt act — in the carrying out of their official duties will be fined by an amount that is not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the bribe in question. Alternatively they may be imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or they may be fined and imprisoned. Penalties apply to financial institutions who do not comply with an order to terminate any corresponding accounts within 10 days of being so ordered by the Attorney General or the Secretary of Treasury. The financial institution can be fined $US10,000 for each day the account remains open after the 10 day limit has expired.[

Enough funds were set aside to triple the maximum number of Border Patrol personnel, Customs Service personnel and INS inspectors along with an additional US$50,000,000 funding for the INS and the U.S. Customs Service to improve technology for monitoring the Northern Border and acquiring additional equipment at the Canadian northern border.[

I have no problems with these. You? USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Don't kid yourself. It's not about ideology. It's about money, power and re-election. Mr. Smith is dead.

Mr. Smith never existed in the first place, except as a propaganda tool.
 
For all those in favor of overturning the entire thing...

Are you also in favor of overturning the FISA Act as well as TITLE III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act? Since a large majority of the Patriot Act is updating and altering those laws to get them up to speed with the 21st century. For all the blathering about how "PATRIOT Act" is a poor name just used to make people foolishly go along with it, it seems a lot of people are mindlessly just going along with the call for "THROW IT ALL OUT" simply becuase that's the vogue, anti-establishment, "dey tuk ar freedomz!" war cry at the moment. Or is your issue actually with the notion of the government being able to perform survelliance of any kind in which case why are you sweating the new act when the old acts will still let it be done, only with glaringly large loopholes.

If your issue was about the constitutionality, HONESTLY about the constitutionality, you'd be fighting for the unconstitutional parts to be removed. If your issue was about the invasion of privacy and power to the government, then you'd be pushing for those older laws to be repealed thus making Patriot useless because its largely building upon those other laws through amending them. However, in reality, most people are doing the exact same thing they accused lawmakers of doing due to the name PATRIOT...going along with someone because it simply is the popular sentiment being pushed without actually taking the time to fully understand or grasp it.
 
Pass them in separate laws.

Little if any of our survelliance laws have been passed in individual segment laws. Why is it that you're not equally out there decrying the FISA Act and for overturning the entire 1968 Omnibus act? Not to mention that we're at an incredibly partisan time compared to the early 2000's and attempting to pass any of this stuff would likely be difficult not because its necessarily bad law but because it has become such a politicized propoganda fueled mess.
 
For all those in favor of overturning the entire thing...

Are you also in favor of overturning the FISA Act as well as TITLE III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act? Since a large majority of the Patriot Act is updating and altering those laws to get them up to speed with the 21st century. For all the blathering about how "PATRIOT Act" is a poor name just used to make people foolishly go along with it, it seems a lot of people are mindlessly just going along with the call for "THROW IT ALL OUT" simply becuase that's the vogue, anti-establishment, "dey tuk ar freedomz!" war cry at the moment. Or is your issue actually with the notion of the government being able to perform survelliance of any kind in which case why are you sweating the new act when the old acts will still let it be done, only with glaringly large loopholes.

If your issue was about the constitutionality, HONESTLY about the constitutionality, you'd be fighting for the unconstitutional parts to be removed. If your issue was about the invasion of privacy and power to the government, then you'd be pushing for those older laws to be repealed thus making Patriot useless because its largely building upon those other laws through amending them. However, in reality, most people are doing the exact same thing they accused lawmakers of doing due to the name PATRIOT...going along with someone because it simply is the popular sentiment being pushed without actually taking the time to fully understand or grasp it.

I do fully understand and grasp it, and believe it is unconstitutional. And, although Bush did make some changes to the original law, this monstrosity was created under Bill Clinton.
 
What's wrong with these things:

. . . like a library computer. . . a company-owned computer. Oh, wow!! Such an infringement!! Not.

This?

OMG!!! I have to provide two types of identification to open a bank account!!

I have no problems with these. You? USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It will be far easier and more plausible to continue the march toward repealing the various questionable parts of PATRIOT to leave only the solid core than it would be to remove all of Patriot and then attempt to reimpliment all those various things.

Removing 10% of something is easier than attempting to reinstitute 90% in the current political climate.

Our system is structured in such a way that we can actually take a scapel to the bill; that's the method they should, and thankfully have, been taking.
 
Of course all of the arguments go into the river if you only abide by the laws.. If you're not doing anything shady I suspect the Patriot Act will never visit your doorstep? Me, I'm ok with the idea that Uncle Sam is looking out for me and mine, even if it means we have reasonable people secretly invading people privacy insodoing..





Tim-
 
I do fully understand and grasp it, and believe it is unconstitutional. And, although Bush did make some changes to the original law, this monstrosity was created under Bill Clinton.

I don't give a crap if it was created under FDR or Karl Marx himself. Seriously Dan, do you think you're going to win me over of all people by trying to throw out "oh and it was created by a Democrat".

If it was created under Clinton, good on him. Someone should've had the foresight to think "Well golly gee, technology has advanced leaps and bounds since the 60's and 70's perhaps we should do something about it".

If our only methods of removing unconstitutional things from a bill was removing the entire bill then I'd agree with you Dan. Thankfully, through various legislative and legal methods that is not the case. The unconstitutional parts can be removed without killing off the whole bill. Unless you feel like the ENTIRE bill is unconstitutional, in which case again I would have to ask you why you aren't screaming and holloring about the FISA Act or the 1968 Omnibus Act considering they're similar in their scope and intention.
 
Of course all of the arguments go into the river if you only abide by the laws.. If you're not doing anything shady I suspect the Patriot Act will never visit your doorstep? Me, I'm ok with the idea that Uncle Sam is looking out for me and mine, even if it means we have reasonable people secretly invading people privacy insodoing..

Yes, people not doing wrong doing have been caught into a web of issues due to the Patriot Act. What people seem to mistakingly think however is that magically somehow PRIOR to Patriot the government NEVER was able to use loopholes or be corrupt or just make a bad judgement and do similar type of things to people.

Whether or not it'll affect you because you are or are not doing wrong should not determine if one feels something is unconstitutional. Whether or not it matches up with the constitution should determine that. The potential for misuse should be looked at, regardless if you're law abiding or not, but the assumption of definitie wide spread misuse and the assumption that somehow there was magically no misuse before hand and would be none or significantly less simply by removing it is problematic.

It is entirely possible ot have issues with the PATRIOT Act and be an entirely law abiding citizen. Hell, I support keeping PATRIOT, am a law abiding citizen, and still have zero issues with certain parts being removed or taken out because I feel they're damaging to constitutional freedoms.
 
Back
Top Bottom