Is The Patriot Act Constitutional?

Question

Give legitimate reasoms that would help me in writing my essay. If possible please put reliable sources so that I may be able to use them for my paper. Please do not put bullshit answers such as yes, no, or who the **** cares, because they will not help me.

Answer 1

There is a bi-partisan, grassroots rebellion afoot in American, a movement to resist the USA PATRIOT Act. The Bush Administration, United Stated Congress and mainstream media had better stand-up and take notice as pressure builds to reform provisions of the Act that violate American civil liberties.

As the USA PATRIOT Act is scheduled up for renewal in the U.S. Congress, 5 states* and 378 cities, counties and municipalities have passed resolutions calling on their representatives to take a hard look at eliminating the worst elements of the Act and bringing it into line with U.S. Constitutional guarantees of civil liberties.

Fourteen other red and blue states from Wyoming to Massachusetts have similar resolutions in various stages of development, creating what the Bill of Rights Defense Committee calls "Civil Liberties Safe Zones."

Montana's role in this movement is significant because it's the only state in the continental United States, west of the Mississippi River, that has passed a formal resolution adamantly opposing provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, which citizens and legislators believe subverts civil rights granted by the U.S. Constitution.

Montana is a red state which voted by a 3-2 margin to re-elect George W. Bush. Paul Edwards, a citizen leader of the Red State Rebellion from Helena said, "Here we are in this sea of red and we're saying 'No' to the Bush Administration's USA PATRIOT Act."

Montana Resolution 19, passed the State House (87-12) and State Senate (40-10) by resounding margins in both parties. The Resolution, regarded as the toughest passed anywhere to date, made its way through the entire legislative process without amendment.

Members of the Montana House and Senate who voted against the Resolution were described by Paul Edwards as those who favor Bush mandates over federal and state Constitutional rights. Edwards characterized opponents as, "sold-out, valueless politicians with mindless, unswerving loyalty to the Bush regime."

The leadership that sheparded the Resolution through the legislative process came from both ends of the political spectrum in Montana. Senator Jim Elliott, a Trout Creek progressive was the lead sponsor in the State Senate. Representative Rick Maedje from Fortine, among the most conservative members of the State legislature, led the charge in the State House.

Unlikely allies included some staunch conservative members of the Montana State Senate like Jim Shockley (R-Victor), Ms. Aubyn Curtis (R- Fortine) and Jerry O'Neil (R-Columbia Falls), whose support led to a unanimous voice vote in the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee to pass the Resolution condemning all acts of terrorism against the Unites States, while resisting a campaign "at the expense of essential civil rights and liberties of citizens."

The Montana Resolution requires that "in the absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under Montana State law, no agency or instrumentality of the State of Montana may" (the following is a partial list of excerpts from Resolution 119):

initiate, participate in or assist with an inquiry, investigation, surveillance or detention;

record, file, or share intelligence information concerning a person or organization, including library lending and research records, book and video store sales, medical records, financial records, student records, and other personal data;

collect or maintain information about the political, religious or social views; associations or activities of any individual, group, organization or business or engage in racial profiling.

Resolution 19 directs the Montana Attorney General to seek, "the names of all residents of the State of Montana who have been arrested or otherwise detained by federal authorities as a result of terrorism investigations since September 11, 2001; the location of each detainee; the circumstances [of] each detention; the charges ... lodged against each detainee, the name of counsel ... representing the detainees."

The Attorney General of Montana is also charged with obtaining information from the federal government about electronic surveillance, monitoring of political or religious meeting and the number of times and circumstances under which citizen's records are obtained under powers granted by the USA PATRIOT Act.

The Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act was introduced on April 6, 2005 to restore "checks and balances on federal domestic spying powers and narrow several controversial Patriot Act provisions," according to the American Civil Liberties Union. The Montana Resolution calls upon its Delegation in the U.S. Congress to correct provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act that "infringe on civil liberties by supporting passage of the SAFE Act and the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA)."

In passing the Resolution the at the urging of its citizens, the Montana State Legislature exhorted the Montana Congressional Delegation including U.S. Senators Max Baucus (D) and Conrad Burns (R) to "vigorously oppose any pending and future federal legislation to the extent that it infringes in American's civil rights and liberties, such as the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, Better known as Patriot Act II."

Answer 2

ACLU Challenges Patriot Act

DETROIT, July 30, 2003



(Photo: CBS)



"Ordinary Americans should not have to worry that the FBI is rifling through their medical records, seizing their personal papers, or forcing charities and advocacy groups to divulge membership lists."
ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson



(CBS/AP) The American Civil Liberties Union and Arab American groups have filed a lawsuit challenging parts of the USA Patriot Act, in what the ACLU says is the first direct constitutional attack on the law.

They're opposing rules that let authorities monitor books people read and carry out secret searches.

The challenge was jointly announced Wednesday by the ACLU in Michigan and Portland, Ore.

The suit specifically challenges Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which contains the controversial provision which gives the FBI expanded powers in terrorism investigations to obtain records and other "tangible things" from entities that include libraries and internet providers.

"By compromising the rights to privacy, free speech, and due process, Section 215 violates the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution," reads the complaint. "Plaintiffs respectfully seek a declaration that Section 215 is facially unconstitutional, and a permanent injunction against its enforcement."

The U.S. Supreme Court had declined without comment to consider an earlier ACLU challenge to the government's expanded surveillance powers under the act.

"Ordinary Americans should not have to worry that the FBI is rifling through their medical records, seizing their personal papers, or forcing charities and advocacy groups to divulge membership lists," said ACLU attorney Ann Beeson.

Congress passed the Patriot Act after the Sept. 11 attacks. The Justice Department calls it a crucial weapon in the war on terrorism. Spokesman Charles Miller said Wednesday that officials hadn't seen the lawsuit. After officials review it, the Justice Department likely will respond in court, he said.
An FBI spokeswoman referred calls to the U.S. attorney's office in Detroit, which had no immediate comment.

Answer 3

On February 28, 1933--the day after the Reichstag fireplace--President Hindenburg and Chancellor Hitler invoked Article 40 8 of the Weimar structure, which approved the suspension of civil liberties in a time of nationwide emergency. A Decree of the Reich President for the safe practices of the individuals and State abrogated top right here German constitutional protections: free expression of opinion Freedom of the clicking top of assembly and association top to privateness of postal and digital communications safe practices adverse to unlawful searches and seizures individual sources rights States' top of self-authorities A supplemental decree created the SA (hurricane Troops) and SS (particular safe practices) Federal police agencies. it truly is what they were petrified of. similar rules were invoked by technique of King George, it is area of the reason we sought Independence. It became an Independence from tyranny.

Answer 4

It's constitutional until the supreme court decides otherwise. The people who object to it and challenge it in court are doing the right thing, that's the only way it will be decided.

Answer 5

Yes... because the President is charged with the safety and security of our country. He has the authority to protect me and my family from harm.

The ACLU is evil and anti American.

Liberty Over Liberalism!

Answer 6

The first answer to this is an excellent one, so I would work along those lines.