• 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!

House effort would completely dismantle the Patriot Act.

This here, I like this. It might be dead in the water but I do enjoy the fact we have some politicians from both sides of the aisle that want to dismantle the Patriot Act.
 
This here, I like this. It might be dead in the water but I do enjoy the fact we have some politicians from both sides of the aisle that want to dismantle the Patriot Act.

I agree. At least there is bi-partisan discussion on something important.
 
The Patriot act authorizes the unconstitutional invasion of the right to privacy, totally abridges any form of due process, and adds unnecessary bureaucracy to an executive branch that dropped the ball prior to 9/11 because there was so much bureaucratic mess. Anybody who thinks that this law is keeping us safer is delusional.
 
The Patriot act authorizes the unconstitutional invasion of the right to privacy, totally abridges any form of due process, and adds unnecessary bureaucracy to an executive branch that dropped the ball prior to 9/11 because there was so much bureaucratic mess. Anybody who thinks that this law is keeping us safer is delusional.

I don't understand! It's called the Patriot Act! Surely it is something all patriots would want.
 
I like it. Too bad it's probably a non-starter.

Important legislation should never be passed in moments of hysteria as this was. And it would have been nice if our Congresspeople actually read the damn thing. Those alone are reasons enough for a do over.
 
I don't understand! It's called the Patriot Act! Surely it is something all patriots would want.

I must not be a patriot for wanting my basic rights protected then! The audacity!
 
That would be great and I bet most citizens would be in favor of it. Which means it probably won't pass.
 
The Patriot act authorizes the unconstitutional invasion of the right to privacy, totally abridges any form of due process, and adds unnecessary bureaucracy to an executive branch that dropped the ball prior to 9/11 because there was so much bureaucratic mess. Anybody who thinks that this law is keeping us safer is delusional.

Does the constitution define a right to privacy? If so, I missed it.
 
Does the constitution define a right to privacy? If so, I missed it.

Both the 3rd and the 4th Amendments certainly creates a right to privacy.
 
The Patriot act authorizes the unconstitutional invasion of the right to privacy, totally abridges any form of due process,

It doesn't do either of those things.
 
Does the constitution define a right to privacy? If so, I missed it.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists.
 
The concept sounds amazing. I am sure they can screw it up, but the concept is great.
 
As I said in the other thread, I disagree with this entirely as I disagree with every suggestion that people make of using a hatchet when a scapel would be more reasonable. When even the bills biggest critic at the time of it's passing acknowledged that 90% of the massive piece of legislation was "sound" that should be a clear indication that the entire thing is not necessarily a problem.

We should not toss our intelligence back into the 1960's, returning to a situation with vast amounts of grey area as it relates to the massive amount of modern communications technology. Nor should we foolishly think that we can gut the vast amount of legitimately positive law within PATRIOT to only repass it in new legislation. We are in a far more bitterly partisan time then we were at the time of PATRIOT's passing. Combine that with the natural stigma that ANYTHING related to PATRIOT...being brought back up to a vote on the flooor...will have and it's completely unrealistic and unbelievable to think that they'd simply "pass a new law with the 'good' things".

Indeed, if that was the intent, it would be far more intelligent and efficient to simply remove the problematic portions of PATRIOT and let the majority of useful things stay, as opposed to tossing the baby out with the bathwater and then taking the time, energy, and money necessary to go through the process of adding it all back.

Continue what our various checks and balances have already been properly doing, and continue to prune out and remove the troublesome parts as we move farther and farther from the period of heightened security that brought PATRIOT to bear.

Unless one is suggesting to simultaneously repeal and then try and "put the good parts back" of the rest of our survelliance law, such as the Foriegn Intelligence Survelliance Act or Title III of the Omnibus Safe Street sand Crime Control Act of 1968, it is absolutely asinine to outright repeal PATRIOT.
 
Both the 3rd and the 4th Amendments certainly creates a right to privacy.

Hard to say. They are pretty specific as to what sorts of privacy they define. They leave all the rest of privacy issues alone so you interpret it to mean that other forms of privacy are protected by default simply because the constitution mentions some privacy issues. One could also interpret it to mean that no other forms of privacy are specifically protected. You can interpret it in opposing ways. It doesn't seem very clear to me.
 
It doesn't do either of those things.

Metadata collection, email collection, the illegal detention of person for indefinite time without formal charges, wiretapping and more? You're right, totally legal.
 
Back
Top Bottom