Is the Patriot act, and Military act Constitutional?

Question

Is parts of them or are they unconstitutional in their entirety. .

Answer 1

The Patriot Act has sections that have been declared unconstitutional. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 has not been challenged yet but it IS unconstitutional. According to the Constitution Article 1 Section 10 states:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it"
The Military Commissions Act suspends the writ of Habeas Corpus.
We have not been invaded nor is there a rebellion so it can be challenged and defeated.

Answer 2

The catch 22 situation is that liberals best grant phoney and paranoid aspects why the Patriot Act is "risky". It does now not enable warrentless wiretaps, for representation, to boot on worldwide calls to pointed out terrorists. right that's a clue: imaginary constitutional privateness rights to not exist the international over. Liberals choose us to contemplate that each and every call will additionally be tapped at any time, which truthfully it is besides the undeniable fact that unlawful below the Patriot Act.

Answer 3

Military Act?
As for the Patriot Act. Fully Constitutional. Debated, Voted on by Congress, amended, Has has some court challenges. Mostly People are making a lot of noise about nothing. Or do like to hang with Al queda buddies at your house on Thursdays? Otherwise, whats your beef?

Answer 4

I think that the patriot act is unconstitutional, but I havent heard about the military act.

Answer 5

I think the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, and we'll see how it plays out over the next several years.

What is "the Military act"?

Answer 6

What's the military act?

Answer 7

Both are UN-Constitutional and will be repealed when Bush is gone.

Answer 8

The first amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If the Patriot act allows the government to wire-tap and incriminate someone who is expressing some negative views of the government, and arrests him without a warrant, that would violate the 1st, the 4th, and the 5th amendments of the constitution.

If you look at the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, it says:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

If the Patriot Act says.. you can search someone's house without a warrant or without someone knowing it, then it's a violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution.


Also, the 14th amendment says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, whether it's the Federal Government or the State doing the search and seizure without warrant, it's in violation of the 4th and the 14th amendment of the constitution.


The 5th amendment says:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

If someone is taken for questioning, he or she should be able to take the 5th, in order to not incriminate himself and also have a lawyer avilable. If the Patriot Act denies this right, it's in violation of the 5th amendment.

The sixth amendment says:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

So, if the Patriot act denies someone a speedy and fair trial, and access to an attorney, then it's in violation of the 6th amendment.

The 8th amendment says:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

If the Patriot Act enables torture and questioning without a fair trial, then it is in violation of the 8th amendment.


There is more, but I think that's enough to determine if the Patriot Act is constitutional or not.

Answer 9

Nope its not how the constitution was to be taken.

Answer 10

If the supreme court hasn't ruled that it's unconstitutional.........it's constitutional.