What would the founding fathers think about the unpatriotic "Patriot Act"?

Question

I don't think they'd like it.

Answer 1

They must be turning in their graves!!


The signatories of the Declaration of Independence are often called "Founders," and the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention which prepared the Constitution are often called "Framers." According to Joseph J. Ellis , this concept emerges in the 1820s as the last survivors died out. George Washington was always the dominant figure. He was joined by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and after that, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and others. Ellis says the "the founders," or "the fathers" comprised an aggregate of semi-sacred figures whose particular accomplishments and singular achievements were decidedly less important than their sheer presence as a powerful but faceless symbol of past greatness. For the generation of national leaders coming of age in the 1820s and 1830s—men like Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Adam Smith, and John C. Calhoun—"the founders" represented a heroic but anonymous abstraction whose long shadow fell across all followers and whose legendary accomplishments defied comparison. "We can win no laurels in a war for independence," Webster acknowledged in 1825. "Earlier and worthier hands have gathered them all. Nor are there places for us ... [as] the founders of states. Our fathers have filled them. But there remains to us a great duty of defence and preservation." [1]

Answer 2

Well, I see that "idiotsreside" is posting in his usual tone, and Shrink is at least hopeful.

Personally, I doubt that we'll ever get back anything we've lost. Ever.

People that spout the notion,"I don't care what they do, I'm not doing anything wrong," are sad and would roll over for anyone promising them a little false security. But they would also not apply that same sense of disclosure against Bush or his administration. What's up with that?

The Federal Govt. has absolutely NO business in the lending records of municipal public libraries; as if there's some kind of documentation there so delicate and sensitive, it might help the terrorists. I highly doubt it.

Anyone (Rep or Dem) that's passionate about free speech and press ought to be outraged by that.

I think it was the NRA that was against databases of gun ownership, but Republicans (who supposedly support the NRA) have no problem with databases regarding OnStar.

It's all in the interpretation and utilization, sports fans.

As if there was no misuse of information, observation or investigation under J. Edgar Hoover's watch, which was much less high-tech than today...

Answer 3

I don't think they would be "thinking" about it. They would probably do what we aren't doing, and that is fight to make sure there are no stipulations being put into the Constitution.

We the people always seem to have the wool pulled over our eyes by these law makers who are only out to make the Constitution work for those who are in office or the very wealthy and powerful. And they work very hard at this every single day, adding stipulations or Amendments and other Resolutions that are somehow attached to other Resolutions.

I think we; Americans, as well as our fore fathers of the Constitution, would probably be very shocked if we were to sit down and read the "Original" Constitution, and compare it to today's written Constitution, and find that it somehow and some way is not even protecting the majority of Americans anymore!

Answer 4

Hmm it was passed by Congress and signed by the President. The system worked. Just because YOU do not like it does not make "unpatriotic"

Bring a lawsuit or join an existing one and challenge to the US Supreme Court if you believe so strongly on this issue. I actually would disagree with you but support you in your right to do so.

So I guess the way Washington handle the "Whiskey Rebellion" was Patriotic but the "Patriot Act" is not... OK

Answer 5

I don't find anything "unpatriotic" about an act which is part and parcel to our war on terror.
Perhaps you feel the people on the home front shouldn't be inconvenienced at all while our young troops are on the front lines trying to eliminate the ideology of hatred and domination responsible for the events of 9/11 - as well as the acts of war, terror and murder perpetrated against Americans all over the globe for over 25 years.
I personally believe that if we lose this war - we will be sadly awakened at a later date to the resolve and determination of these Islamic radicals to continue with their agenda of total domination - and we will again be faced with a decision to either stand against them or submit to their demands.
The choice will be ours.

Answer 6

I don't know Anthony, do you really think our founding fathers
would stand a chance? I mean, these creeps would be
bashing Franklin for his girlfriends, Washington for his
teeth & Jefferson for his slaves. In today's politics, where
money seems to say more than wisdom, I'm not sure
these guys could get word in edge wise.

Answer 7

I disagree...I don't think they imagined a situation where anyone could conspire with known ANTI US groups hidden in their own home...in their day to communicate they had to travel and the risk of conspiring and being found out was greater.......you either had to have a enemy visit you which your neighbors may see..or travel to meet them and risk being seen....calling internationally to converse with KNOWN TERRORIST GROUP AFFILIATES is not a constitutional right....that is the true power of the act.....if abused...do not go after the good law...go after the law breakers....

Answer 8

I think they would consider it war-time legislation and expect it to end when our nation was no longer at war.

Let's focus on that, maybe, huh? Because I do not see Democrats in Congress saying anything about it.

And I agree it should be limited to terrorists.

EDIT: You know, Humanist, I do not consider it my job to protect "Bushco," and I find that an insulting and non-helpful answer. I am an American first, however, and it would seem like there are some among us who just thrive on keeping Americans divided on even these types of questions. Sickening!

Answer 9

Great question.

That anti-American bunch of Neanderthals so named the act to prevent people like me questioning the fallacy of their actions.

Seems to have worked to a degree, just listen to the nut jobs here that protect Bushco.

Answer 10

Well, I don't think they would find as much fault with it as they would with your reasoning since when the founding fathers were alive, they had no telephones or emails to consider. You have a right to your opinion (as flawed as it may be) and I have a right to mine.