Are the patriot act and the monitoring of personal info constitutional?

Answer 1

Maybe. But where and what would you do to keep the Consitution alive with a viable Republic that is free of terrorism?

When law and order breaks down, you will say to yourself, just where was the Secret Police and Human Rights violators when we needed them?

Answer 2

Sadly, yes. While intrusive, the vast majority of the provisions in the Patriot Act stretch the legal limits of what is allowed under the 4th Amendment. A couple of provisions of the 2001 version were found to be unconstitutional, but those were amended and 'corrected' in the 2006 version.

As far as monitoring of personal information and electronic surveillance, FISA has been in place for almost 30 years, and has been found constitutional.

The problem with the current illegal surveillance programs is that do not even make an attempt at following the laws. In other words, they violate the laws with no valid reason. And there are no valid constitutional reasons to allow the programs where they violate federal laws, so they are unconstitutional not by themselves, but because they are unreasonably violate federal law.

Answer 3

Yes, it is supposed to "protect" us! Since they can't do any "profiling" in the US to identify terrorists, they assume it is everyone and you have to prove otherwise!

My husband lost his driver's license (we are in VA) and was told his birth certificate, that he'd been using for years, was not adequate---because it had been issued by a hospital and not the county where he was born (in NJ). Plus he needed about four other documents, proof of residence, etc. Never mind that we have been living on the same street for 10 years. And, the list for "legal aliens" documentation for a driver's license was less than what you need if you are born in the US.

I'll bet you've touched off a hot topic with this question LOL

Answer 4

Personally, I have a real problem with extending constitutional protection to those individuals or groups whose credo is to harm or jeopardize our national security. Why give constitutional protection to the enemy.
When a person or group has been deemed by reasonable evidence to threaten our security, then law enforcement should be able to gather evidence for prosecution without regard to constitutional rights.

Answer 5

Why should I give a crap?
The government is not really interested if I'm trying to score a few grams of pot, if I'm cheating on my wife, or if I'm looking for porn. They're not interested in my phone calls to grandma or emails to a former girlfriend. They're a whole lot more interested in who is trying to blow us all up.
The same pansy alarmists who whine about the government's intrusion into our personal lives are the same pansies that are going to cry and whine about "why didn't President Bush do anything about it?" next time a major terrorist action occurs.
Go ahead, government! Read my emails. Monitor my phone calls. Catch the terrorist muslims. Everybody whining about it can just STFU.

Answer 6

Dude, the monitoring takes place way up in northern Canada, outside US borders. Technically US law may not apply in this situation.

Answer 7

After the law passed, they are legal if the specific restrictions are followed. Whether they are constitutonal or not, I don' personally feel they are, but unless the judicial branch rules against them, they stand.