Originally posted by Nygdan
The patriot act pretty clearly is not an ammendment ot the US Constitution. At worst, it might be unconstitutional, though I notice you didn't
bother to explain how it is unconstitutional. If it is, then it can be struck down by the SCOTUS, like other unpopular laws, likesay the Alien and
Also, the fact that our rights are enumerated in great detail in the bill of rights ITSELF might be an arguement for their own erosion. Many feared
that spelling out our rights would imply that what was left out, isn't a right. We have the 4th ammendment, which is supposed to protect our rights,
but, the Patriot Act isn't in violation of the 4th ammendment, its perfectly legal, and anyone that challenges it in the Supreme Court, their
arguement can be rejected so long as the language of the patriot act jives with the language of the 4th ammendment. If that right hadn't been spelled
out in that way, or at all, then a person could arguably be more secure against something like the 'easy warrants' in the patriot act. By
'explaining' the rights, it removes the old 'self-evident' idea, and brings in legalistic loopholes to get around the rights.
Is the patriot act a unpopular piece of law, yes to many, not to many others. I am not a political science major nygdan, but I am an American citizen.
Thus, laws of the land affect me and it also makes me aware of them. I never stated the patriot act was indeed a article 8 of the constitution, but I
stated I may be wrong at my preception of the PA. Should I explain why the patriot act is unconstitutional or should I explain the effect that it was
passed by the houses with little discourse and thus became a law of the land.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
So your saying that the patriot act jives right along with the 4th amendment and thus will and cannot be challenged through the supreme court. Where
does this put americans in respect to the patriot act. It is a law of the land, police can enter your home and search it without a warrent and without
telling you and if telling you, you cannot speak about it even to a legal rep.
As you stated if I am clear on this is that (We have the 4th ammendment, which is supposed to protect our rights, but, the Patriot Act isn't
in violation of the 4th ammendment, its perfectly legal, and anyone that challenges it in the Supreme Court, their arguement can be rejected so long
as the language of the patriot act jives with the language of the 4th ammendment.) What if the language of the patriot act violates the Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein
the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.
So your stating even though it violates the VI amendment it is legal as long as it does not violate the IV amendment. That does not seem to jive also
as it would and could be challenged through a state and federal court.
Why does the ATS not have a copy of the patriot act here where people can read everything in it, that is a question also. If your sites needs a
complete copy I will give you one.
But getting back to the foundation of the US Constitution and the movement to a centralized core of power in the us, why was the patriot act needed
when we already had laws on the books to address terrorism, acts of sedation and courts set up for searches that could occur first without obtaining