Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
What went wrong with the USofA?
Bush?
Why, yes! I AM new here.
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.
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?
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.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
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.
And they said zombies weren't real!
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.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
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.
MABASPLOOM!
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.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
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
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.
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.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
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?
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.
"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.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.