Parts of the Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional

BlueBlade writes "According to this CBS story, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause."

Comments

And this took how long?

[an.echte.trilingue]

Seriously, why did this take so long?

Re:And this took how long?

[Speedracer1870]

It would be unpatriotic to vote down the patriot act. Seriously, it would have been a lot easier to defeat had it been named the communist act.

Re:And this took how long?

[morgan_greywolf]

The patriotic thing to do is to uphold the Constitution, the highest law of the land. You know, the document your forefathers fought and died to uphold. If the PATRIOT Act is in conflict with the Constitution, then it is unpatriotic, just like the Members of Congress who voted it in and the President who signed the bill.

Re:And this took how long?

[durin]

What went wrong with the USofA?

Bush?

Re:And this took how long?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think the history is that the courts have allowed temporary wartime injustices like this in the past, loss of habeas corpus during the Civil War (if you suggested peace with the South you might be arrested), internment of Germans in WWI, and the internment of Japanese in WWII.

The problem is that the current administration wants to have it both ways, wartime/emergency/crisis powers and wants the domestic life to otherwise behave as if there is no emergency, such as repeatedly cutting taxes, despite deficit spending.

Re:And this took how long?

[Anonymous Coward]

What went wrong with the USofA?

Bush?

Nah, the downfall started before him - otherwise how did he manage to get elected in the first place?

Re:And this took how long?

[DoofusOfDeath]

If the PATRIOT Act is in conflict with the Constitution, then it is unpatriotic, just like the Members of Congress who voted it in and the President who signed the bill.

Agreed. They were so afraid of getting attacked that they ignored the constitution they swore to uphold. So they are, specifically: cowards, traitors, and oath-breakers.

Re:And this took how long?

[Sierpinski]

It would be unpatriotic to vote down the patriot act. Seriously, it would have been a lot easier to defeat had it been named the communist act.

I was asking myself the same question (parent of this parent as well), why did it take several years for something that was so much of a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights be removed? Does it actually take a challenge (ie lawsuit) for a court to overturn anti-constitutional laws?

You can go back even farther, how in the world did Congress ever allow this bill to become law anyway? Oh, did it ride on the coattails of another bill that was a sure-in to be signed? Now THAT is something that I think needs to change. If something is important enough to go before Congress, it should warrant its OWN vote, and not be able to be attached to something else, especially if the bill it's being attached to has nothing to do with the attached bill.

Of course, lets see Congress pass a law outlawing that. Where are the checks and balances here?
They didn't really talk much about the underhanded tricks of Congress in my high school government class.

Re:And this took how long?

[neoform]

You'll notice however that unlike in the past, the Patriot Act was (by it's backers at least) hoped to be a permanent new set of laws. The Patriot Act's original wording might have made it temporary, but that was quickly amended. This was never about being for the war, this was just a power grab, and it worked, despite having just had a part of it overturned.

Think about it like this, if it took 5 years to have a piece of the Patriot Act thrown out.. what's to stop another identical new law from being passed and taking ANOTHER 5 years to have it thrown out, all the while being used to illegally wiretap? The only way to stop this from happening again is prosecute those who did the illegal wiretaps.

Re:And this took how long?

[cluckshot]

I want to pitch a little bit of history of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. It is critical to this discussion.

The Bill of Rights pushed by the "Anti-Federalists" led by Thomas Jefferson was never intended to give the government power nor was it intended to do anything other than provide a tripwire for the citizens to know the government was getting out of hand. It wasn't an enumeration of rights either. T. Jefferson saw the French Revolution supposed to be a copy of our own revolution going seriously wrong. He built this to prevent terror by the state. That is the reason pure and simple. It was to protect the people from terrorism of the worst kind.

Rather than being a beginner to terrorism as the press and President would have you believe the USA was forged in a sea of terrorism. Its right there in the Declaration of Independence if you want to read it. It happened in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama from 1810 to 1814 with tens of thousands killed. It happened in the Plains Indian Wars of the 1867 to 1885 period. It happened again in the West USA as late as after 1900! (I know my family was there!) Yes it was state sponsored. England Paid the bills. Yes it was religious extremist terrorists every time.

The USA is an ignorant fool if it thinks that giving up its right will make it safe. These rights including the right to be armed are essential rights. Just like removing the quills from a porcupine does not make it safer or protect its rights, removing the rights of people does not make them safe or protect them. Just as a quill free porcupine is now at risk of all terrors people without their rights are the same. As nobody makes a business of kicking porcupines nobody makes a business of picking on a well armed and well defended people who defend their rights.

Today we in the USA see ourselves threatened on every side by a terrorism of the State which is using Al Quada as a mafia enforcer to extract about a trillion dollars in stolen money from the American People each year as a result of this protection racket. This engine of terrorism comes up with new threats every appropriations season in congress. This terrorism by the state has broken our currency stealing more than 1/3 of the value of everything in the USA. It has broken our armed forces in the world and threatens to sink the entire world into a new reign of terror such as has never been seen. All of this is in the name of the "Patriot Act". Real patriots will oppose the sheering of rights that makes this possible.

Re:And this took how long?

[Lloyd_Bryant]

I was asking myself the same question (parent of this parent as well), why did it take several years for something that was so much of a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights be removed? Does it actually take a challenge (ie lawsuit) for a court to overturn anti-constitutional laws? Yes. A judge cannot, on his own initiative, declare a law unconstitutional. There first must be a legitimate challenge to the law made by someone. And people can't simply file a suit to challenge *any* law - they must be able to show that they "have standing", which basically means they can show that the law in question has negatively affected them in some fashion.

You can go back even farther, how in the world did Congress ever allow this bill to become law anyway? It was simply 9/11 madness. If enough people can be sufficiently frightened, then just about *any* law can be ramrodded through Congress. It's one of the great weaknesses in the whole democratic concept, and one of the major reasons that the Founding Fathers put all those checks-and-balances into the Constitution.

Re:And this took how long?

[Daniel_Staal]

I was asking myself the same question (parent of this parent as well), why did it take several years for something that was so much of a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights be removed? Does it actually take a challenge (ie lawsuit) for a court to overturn anti-constitutional laws? Yes. In theory you could pass another law which says the old law is invalid, but in practice nearly any law will stand until challenged in court. Congress, like any other body of people, rarely wants to admit it was wrong.

You can go back even farther, how in the world did Congress ever allow this bill to become law anyway? Oh, did it ride on the coattails of another bill that was a sure-in to be signed? As much as I hate that practice, that is not relevant in this case: the PATRIOT act was it's own bill, and it was a sure-in to be signed. It was the immedeate, paniced, reaction to the 9/11 attacks. People wanted Congress to do something anything to make them 'safe' again. Unfortunately in the panic, the bill that was presented made us less safe, not more. But it sounded like it made people safe, so that was enough.

Re:And this took how long?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government has been at war with someone, somewhere in the world, every single year of the past 100 years.

The US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people.

The US government is now the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire (military bases in some 150 countries around the world) that has ever existed.

Clearly, this near-exponential growth of government over the past century began well before Bush was even born, and in all probability, will continue long after he's gone. Forget about who's holding power at any given time -- what we need to recognize is the big picture, and clearly, the big picture shows a government determined to expand in power and revenue year after year.

I think it's time to swallow our pride and accept that the driving force behind government is self-interest. There's a reason why every year we are subject to more laws than the year before, and every year government takes in more revenue than the year before -- and it's not because making government bigger is unprofitable for those in the business of government.

Make no mistake, this is the biggest, most lucrative business that could ever exist.

Re:And this took how long?

[Antique Geekmeister]

You misspelled "Reaganomics" there.

Re:And this took how long?

[cs02rm0]

What went wrong with the USofA?

Bush?

Nah, the downfall started before him - otherwise how did he manage to get elected in the first place?

Bush?

Re:And this took how long?

[mapsjanhere]

The "standing" problem is what keeps most of the hidden surveillance in place. Since you can't show that they spied on you, you can't sue. It even went so far that even when people had evidence that their phone calls had been tapped (as happened when some attorney got a list of tapped phone calls from the FBI by mistake) the evidence was declared classified and inadmissible. No list, no standing, no law suit. And the telecom industry hides behind a statute that forbids them to talk about the surveillance, and so can claim they cannot defend themselves, and get the suits tossed on that basis.

Re:And this took how long?

[eln]

Saying people are wrong and backing up your argument with a very, very simple and generalized economic argument that has been misused by tax cut advocates for decades is silly. All the Laffer curve does is say that there is a theoretical tax rate at which revenues are maximized. It says nothing about what that tax rate might be, and it says nothing about what other factors may change this "optimal" tax rate. In fact, your own link states that some studies have put the optimal tax rate as high as 80%!

Tax receipts are the highest they've ever been due mostly to the fact that the economy is larger than it's ever been. More money coming in to the country as a whole means more money the government can skim off the top. This is true regardless of what the tax rate is, so long as the economy is continuously growing at some rate greater than zero.

The real question to ask is what impact have these particular tax cuts had on the overall growth rate of the economy. The answer to this question, of course, has to take into account an almost infinite number of factors, and does not really have a clear answer, which is why tax cuts are such great political tools. You cut taxes, and when the economy inevitably grows (as it has done nearly every year for decades) you can take all the credit for it. If you are unlucky enough to cut taxes at a time when the economy contracts, you can claim that the people (who are now poorer because of the contraction) need more tax relief, and cut taxes again. Then, when the economy grows, you can again take credit for it.

The truth is, the tax rate under normal conditions has very little impact on total economic growth. The economy is just too large and complex for a minor (in comparison with total revenue) tax cut to have a major impact. Unless the rate swings wildly (say, from 20 to 90% in the space of a few years), it will not impact economic growth in any significant way. Other government decisions can have far greater impacts on the economy than fiddling with the tax rate ever could.

Re:And this took how long?

[Red Flayer]

Real patriots will oppose the sheering of rights that makes this possible.

Yes, our rights are opaque and should never, ever be sheered.

Perhaps you meant "sheared"? I agree that our rights should always be woolly, and shearing them would be a fleecing of the highest order.

Re:And this took how long?

[Dausha]

"T. Jefferson saw the French Revolution supposed to be a copy of our own revolution going seriously wrong. He built this to prevent terror by the state."

1. Bill of Rights---1789 (drafted by Madison).[1]
2. French Revolution's Reign of Terror---1792.[2]
3. Jefferson's role in the Constitution---None, he was in France. [3]

Based on the three facts above, I don't see how your statement stands. The Bill of Rights was not to prevent terrorism, but to prevent the Federal government from becoming bloated and repressive. The Courts have misconstrued the 14th Amendment to allow leveraging the BoR against states as well.[4]

The Bill of Rights states that searches cannot be _unreasonable_, which the Courts have defined. You can be searched in airports by federal officers (TSA) when traveling because the extreme risk of a bomb makes searching everybody reasonable. Allowing another 9/11 carries a high risk; which makes an otherwise unreasonable search _more_ reasonable. Probable cause twists with the risk of not searching.

This is also a Federal District judge making a ruling. There will likely be an appeal to the 9th Circuit and perhaps also to SCOTUS. This is only a shot across the bow of the PATRIOT Act.

----
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights ("[The Bill of Rights were initially] drafted by James Madison in 1789...")
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution (The Revolution began in 1789)
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson ("Because Jefferson served as minister to France from 1785 to 1789, he was not able to attend the Constitutional Convention. He generally supported the new constitution despite the lack of a Bill of Rights...")
[4] Amend XIV, Sec. 5 gives Congress sole enforcement authority. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html). However, SCOTUS and the state courts have applied it. This is itself unconstitutional in light of Section 5.

Useless Victory

[CWRUisTakingMyMoney]

Great...now how will anyone be able to use this ruling if they don't know they've been searched in the first place? You need legal standing to sue, and that means being able to prove you've been searched, which act will be either 1) impossible or 2) illegal under the same Act.

Re:Useless Victory

[Elemenope]

So cynical...while it has limited utility, the decision is not useless. Police tend to use surveillance techniques and police procedures which procure evidence that can be used to obtain a conviction; if the Act is unconstitutional, evidence obtained under its provisions is inadmissible in court. Knowing that, police agencies will be less likely to use powers in accord with those provisions, since anything that they gather using it will be useless in a court of law.

Yes I know police do go off the rails--"Don't taze me, bro!"--but at least a ruling of this sort curbs one of the worst abuses that can emanate from inappropriate police investigative conduct, namely convictions in a court of law.

AdBlock Plus Plus

[florescent_beige]

At what point can we expect an AdBlock Plus, Ron Paul edition? Because, I'm wanting one.

And this took how long?-long enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the government and the law are like a barge instead of a speedboat. Just be glad that it CAN still happen (contrary to what the cynics say).

This will sound very pessimistic

[Zombie Ryushu]

I have a feeling that in some way we will see a repeat of the Indian Removal act with this. Congress and the President will say: The justices have made their decision, now let them enforce it.

All I have to say is...

[CFBMoo1]

It's about damn time we don't give up our principles for security. Glad to see someone in the three branches of government finally standing up for whats right. I don't want security in my country if it gives my government a blank check to do whatever it pleases. We all know what could happen down the road if governments get too much control and decide they could do what they like.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/27/myanmar.protests/index.html

That could very well be in our future if we write blank checks for terrorism prevention. Lets keep our own house in order so when we go to clean up someone elses house we don't look like fools.

Re:And tonight's top story....

[rolfwind]

It has nothing to do with being a liberal. A lot of republicans voted for it and a lot of democrats did too. Hell, media darlings Hillary Clinton voted for it twice (original and renewal) and Barack Obama voted for the renewal of it.

The patriot act is just unconstitutional. Watch this video for a better understanding for where the country is heading (skip into 2:35 of the first video):
Part 1:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8
Part 2:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GXzUL9KkgvA
Part 3:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=35yhSifZ5jI
Part 4:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fRukPp9Tq5k

Profile:
http://youtube.com/user/FutureFreedomF

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[RobBebop]

Changing viewpoints isn't such a bad thing when new information concludes that your current viewpoint is wrong. What really bothers me is how the current American administration marches forward with their "principles" despite a vast quantity of evidence that suggests they are wrong.

That's corruption without a lack of a spine... and it is even more dangerous.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul...

[morgan_greywolf]

Most of those are pretty bad, and I don't agree with all of his ideology, but I'm a practical guy. The country has gotten out of whack with the PATRIOT Act and other laws designed to erode your liberty under the guise of 'fighting terrorism.' I'm also not sure if all of those things are true, but I've heard them all.

There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up. Hillary and Barrack both voted for the PATRIOT Act and the war. So did Fred Thompson and Mit Romney. These are facts, not FUD, and I'm not trying to start a flamewar, so mod me down if you like mods, but metamods need to pay attention, too, because you aren't supposed to mod based on your political opinion.

Re:And tonight's top story....

[wytcld]

America is more than just its Constitution. America is its people. A patriot is more loyal to the people than to a piece of paper. The people, on the whole, are only semi-literate anyway, so no piece of paper can bring order to them. What brings order isn't paper, but a great leader. We don't like Hitler, Stalin and Mao not because they were great leaders, but because they led countries other than America. Great leaders thrive in warrior cultures. Now there is a choice before us: Do we go forward with the warrior culture of Great Leader Bush, putting Rudy or Mitt or Fred in his place - leaders who even the semi-literate can understand - or do we retreat into "Constitutional" leadership which is hobbled, nuanced, afraid of battle - and beyond what the American people as a whole can comprehend and unite behind?

For decades polls have shown the American people would not support the Bill of Rights if it were up for a vote today. Finally we have a government that's done something about that. It takes a judge to get in the way, to confuse things.

Amazing it made it this far!

[TheSpatulaOfLove]

When they began talking about the unPatriot Act, I called BS immediately. This administration and Congress have wiped their collective asses with the Constitution and they should be indicted for treason.

Fine, I'll give the legislators a bone here about passing this legislation while everyone was reeling from 9/11, but I still can't believe that our leaders who are voted to protect the Constitution VOTED FOR IT AGAIN! Amazing!

This piece of garbage is not about 'protecting freedom' - it's all about control and falls in line with Daddy Bush's vision of the New World Order. The largest obstacle to this was the American Constitution. Take away those rights, and it's easy to become dictator. I'm glad SOMEONE in power woke the fuck up and saw that the unPatriot Act pretty much canceled out every major right the Constitution guarantees US citizens!


They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Attemted treason

[Froze]

Wouldn't it be great if we could charge all those who signed the bill into law with attempted treason?

Re:Attemted treason

[Kirth Gersen]

The parent has been rated Troll. I don't see why. The Patriot Act was treasonous as well as being unconstitutional: there have been plenty of laws which were merely unconstitutional, but the Patriot Act allowed the Bush administration to claim it could legally ignore the constitution. Just being the President doesn't mean you can't be a traitor to the United States: it just means you have a much better chance of success.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul...

[apparently]

Opposes hate crime legislation, as a crime is a crime is a crime, by statute. I'm pretty sure if you kill someone, the thing they would care about is their being dead, not what was going through your head when you did it.

The difference between a murder and a murder conducted as a hate crime is that in the latter, the murder has an additional purpose in that it's perpetrated to serve as a warning toward members of the attacked group. I.e.: A hate crime committed against a homosexual is supposed to serve as a warning to other homosexuals in the community. A hate crime committed toward an African American, is supposed to serve as a warning to other African Americans -- think of a lynching, where the body is left hanging for public display. Thus, there actually is a difference in murdering an individual, and also hoping that said murder will serve as a "Fags go home", or "Know your place nigger" warning statement. Not to throw a word around that is often used incorrectly, but it's a form of terrorism against those communities -- not only was the victim attacked, but the community was as well, hence the additional penalty of committing the crime. (That's using the definition of terrorism as an act that is supposed to instill fear and intimidation into a group of individuals)

Re:Regarding Ron Paul...

[Elemenope]

True. However, the courts already make a sharp distinction between expressive speech and expressive action; burning a cross on a lawn, for example, is intended to cause real harm of the sort you describe, and has no external speech value (unless it's in a Madonna music video...;)). The problem with hate crime legislation per se is that it serves to dissolve the distinction between prohibited acts and prohibited motivations; I don't have much problem with "Hate Crime Legislation" that has a discrete evidentiary burden for a criminalized act intended and normally understood to intimidate a community of persons. However, the difficulty of crafting such legislation finely enough to avoid the criminalization of attitudes and intents that are distasteful but not terroristic is such that I am skeptical any body of legislators (being human and thus subject to the passions and hysterias of the crowd) can successfully do so in all but the most obvious and clear-cut types of behaviors.

I personally think government should solemnly give up the notion it can make people better and concentrate on preventing people from harming each other with overt acts. The protection of communities, including disadvantaged ones, comes from them being assured that they are secure in their persons from harm, and that only comes from the Rule of Law being clear and acting to quash destructive behaviors and acts by applying that rule. Suppressing ideologies for their own sake is never very successful.

Does he have a time machine?

[Grendel Drago]

Given that Obama entered the Senate in 2005, he must have used a time machine to go back and vote for the war in 2002 and the Patriot Act in 2001. Since he didn't go a bit further back and shoot Hitler, he's objectively pro-Hitler. Well, he's just lost my vote.

Re:Obama did NOT vote for the war.

[quanticle]

If you look at his voting record, you'll see that his record on supporting the war is mixed at best, and that he has supported the Patriot Act's reauthorization.

He's bigoted against gay folks.

[Grendel Drago]

He cited the Bible in a court decision which declared gay couples "presumptively unfit to have custody of minor children", and referred to gay sex as an "inherent evil and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it". That smacks of bigotry to me, but perhaps you have another interpretation.

Get your dates right.

[Grendel Drago]

The Bill of Rights was drafted by Madison in 1789. The French Revolution began that year, but the Reign of Terror didn't start until 1793. It seems a little odd that Jefferson could have foreseen how the Revolution overseas would turn out and been influenced to push for a Bill of Rights because of it, rather than arguments which had begun well before the French stormed the Bastille.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul...

[Toonol]

There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up.

That is not what Ron Paul says. He does not believe there is any conspiracy with the US government behind the terrorist attacks, just that our government's incompetence made it easier for them.

I'm a Paul supporter, also, and I'm sure you're trying to help. But, seriously, support from conspiratorialists helps Ron Paul about as much as support from the Communist party helps David Kucinich.

Damn activist judges!

[Abcd1234]

Trying to, like... enforce the constitution. How dare they legislate from the bench!