Holy cow look at all of those Democrats that signed it!
Someone said they came out and said they didn't read it? Now THAT'S something for the Democrat side to brag about!!
2007-01-04 11:59:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by BAARAAACK 5
·
4⤊
3⤋
sure it incredibly is against all that our forefathers have been against whilst they wrote the form. every time we enable politicians get rid of any of our rights we grow to be enslaved a sprint greater every time. Abraham Lincoln do not intrude with something interior the form. That might desire to be maintained, for it is the only shelter of our liberties. Benjamin Franklin They that can supply up needed liberty to get carry of a sprint non everlasting secure practices deserve neither liberty nor secure practices. i like people who say,in case you have not something to cover, you have not something to worry.tell that to anybody who became ever falsely imprisoned. Are you prepared to place your have confidence into the palms of politicians that lie, scouse borrow, cheat, cover their activities, pardon people who do, and so on... ? i'm not! in the time of historic previous you will discover human beings and worldwide places that did only that. They positioned their have confidence in human beings like this. "How fortunate for governments that human beings do not think of." Adolf Hitler "it is the leaders of the country who make certain the coverage and it incredibly is often an trouble-free remember to tug the human beings alongside, no remember if it incredibly is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the human beings can consistently be dropped on the bidding of the leaders. it incredibly is easy. All you will possibly be able to desire to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for loss of patriotism and exposing the country to probability. it works an identical in any u . s .." --Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering in case you think that the U.S. is the wonderful u . s . interior the international, shall we shop it that way. i might lots fairly combat with my constitutional rights intact than die a slave combating for a rustic whose politicians think of all they do is very own, yet all I do might desire to be questioned. you're actually not as secure as you think of.
2016-10-30 00:38:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bush has used the Patriot act to cover up his crimes. Most of those rules are unconstitutional and nobody knows yet what the Republiscum have done to the American people through bogus laws brought into power by drug taking supreme court judges.
2007-01-04 11:55:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Ya H 1
·
4⤊
1⤋
well... the answer is complicated... to your first question... is it unconstitutional... maybe parts of it are... and parts are very useful... some courts are still figuring it out...
as to "why did it pass"... several senators have come out and said that they didn't read it all before they passed it... so that's a BIG PROBLEM...
and the other thing is... you could pass the issue of slavery back into law right after an attack like 9-11 as long as you put a title like "patriot act" on it... it's politics... no one want to vote against a bill called that...
2007-01-04 11:54:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
It is 100% constitutional, and MANY past supreme court rulings and precedents show that Presidents, whether Dem or Rep, have both been granted more power during exigent circumstances. It all comes down to when one considers something to be an extreme circumstance. Liberals feel 9/11 wasn't that bad, so they oppose it. I would like to know the 3000 people who died's opinion on the Patriot Act. Would they have rather died that day just so no one could hear their phone calls? I would guess that lib or con working in the WTC that day would both have supported some sort of program like the Patriot Act to keep them safe
2007-01-04 12:24:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋
I have read it and it is tough to tell without reading several dozen other acts and or laws because the Patriot Act changes the laws of other documents but it doesn't say in the Patriot act what they are, it just refers to them.
2007-01-04 11:58:30
·
answer #6
·
answered by Mario Savio 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
In my opinion it is. But the politicians have been disregarding the Constitution for years now. It will take a challenge to the Patriot act going to the Supreme court to get this issue resolved. I do not see that happening any time soon
2007-01-04 11:52:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by bisquedog 6
·
5⤊
3⤋
Nothing in the constitution says we can't tap the phones of someone from a foreign country. Our constitution doesn't apply to foreigners. So calls coming and going out of this country obviously have a foreigner on the other side. If you have nothing to hide, then this does not affect you at all. Why don't you stop worrying about it so much and let the lawmakers in Congress deal with it. They are the professionals you know.
2007-01-04 11:51:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
Yes, it is unconstitutional.
The reason why it was passed, I don't know.
The majority, if not most, of the politicians in Congress are weird and confusing.
This goes for BOTH Republicans and Democrats.
2007-01-04 11:54:56
·
answer #9
·
answered by peddlersofdeth 2
·
4⤊
3⤋
just because a bill is unconstitutional, doesn't mean it won't be passed. just means no one has contested is constitutionality yet!
but the biggest problem, is the fact that our lawmakers do not read every law they decide on. they get told it is protecting America from terrorists, so they vote yes on it. hence the term, RUBBERSTAMP congress!
it is usally years later that the law gets onto the desk of the supreme court when someone feels it violates their rights, and decides to do something about it.
help for those who don't realize how many other laws that have been passed and later declared unconstitutional:
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/JU/uncon/index.html
2007-01-04 11:50:37
·
answer #10
·
answered by qncyguy21 6
·
5⤊
5⤋