It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Foundation of the US Constitution

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...
In this day and age we hear about our government and political agendas that changes the path of this nation. We are a modern people that understands more about a computer than our constitution. What is our constitution but a wall to protect our rights as citizens. Everyday there are amendments to change our way or living and preceptions of events that surround us.

The foundation of the US Constitution is the Massachusetts Compromise. The US Constitution by itself would centralize government and diminish individual rights and liberties. If it had not been the state of Massachusetts we would not have a bill of rights and this nation would not be a land of free people due to abuse of centralized power. The clash of Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the ratification of the United States Constitution led to serious opposition to the constitution. Before a condition of ratification of the constitution a Bill of Rights was offered as a condition before ratification. So the US Constitution was not allowed without a bill of rights to protect american citizens from abuse of power. This Bill of Rights is our most treasured possession in the United States. Why, because any nation on the face of the earth can have a government or constitution but not a sharing of power between the people and the government it creates.

This brings us to this day and age, where the partiot act has either weakened the Bill of rights or actually taken away the protection from a centralized government
against our indivilized rights. Thus even the Massachusetts Compromise has been destroyed if not rewritten to the tune that "Security is a better Compromise then Freedom".
Thus, and I may be wrong, we are seeing a new article to the US Constitution thus we can say the patriot act is article 8 of the US constitution.
It is neither one or the other of the parties in power in Washington, but both parties that have allowed these actions to become law with no sunset. Our politicial
stance in Washington has reverted back to federalist ideas and the centralization of power that can abuse our rights as free people to choose our own thoughts of freedom.
Where are we now but a centralized executive branch of power which is what our founding fathers did not intend for america.

I would ask that if anyone knows who wrote the patriot act please post, since I cannot find out who wrote the thing.




posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   
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 Sedition Act.

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.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   

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 Sedition Act.

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.
www.law.cornell.edu...
Amendment IV

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 VI

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 consent first!




new topics
 
0

log in

join