has the patriot act nullified the bill of rights?

Question

it seems the 4th is out the window
unless you know what your talking about back it up

Answer 1

Unofficially nullified, yes. The Patriot Act has severely weakened the standards by which the government must obtain a search warrant. I can't blame the Patriot Act entirely, though. The power of the federal government, and in particular the executive, has dramatically increased since FDR's administration, as well as the throughout the Cold War. Much of the expansion occurred under Truman.

Once we allow the government to set the precedent that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights aren't absolute, and that rights aren't inviolable, then we're basically giving the green light to future incursions on our liberty by other presidents who aren't even necessarily dealing with important security matters like terrorism. You may trust Bush and you may want to stop terrorism--I think any sane person wants to stop terrorism!--but by supporting the Patriot Act, you're also saying that you believe every president after Bush can also be trusted. I do not have the confidence to make that assertion.

Answer 2

The USA Tyranny Act does so, but only because it is poorly written. There are no effective checks on the power of the organizations that use the new powers but is instead based on, "hey, it's the government; it can be trusted, trust me" concept. When some of the organizations such as the FBI, one that has a history of abuse of power dating back to before they were even called the FBI, are empowered unchecked, parts of the Constitution goes down the drain by default. It's not just the 4th. 1st, 2nd, and especially the 10th are compromised.

I believe the idea behind is was good and needed to combat international terrorists but, as written, is in effect an amendment to the Constitution without going through the amendment process.

Answer 3

No, the patriot act is a law, rightly or wrongly enacted. The bill of rights is part of the Constitution which cannot be overturned.

Answer 4

It's funny. When legislation of hundreds of pages gets passed, it doesn't infringe on us in anyway, right?

Weird, isn't it? Every other legislation does TWO things CONSISTENTLY:

1) Takes power and privacy away from citizens.
2) Expands the scope (power) of government.

But not the unPatriot Act. It actually doesn't affect us citizens in any way at all.

Strange? You bet it is. Strange as H ELL.

A load of steaming crap? Right, you are.

Answer 5

Some of them, however the most damaging is the Military Commisions Act of 2006 which eliminates habeas corpus and these Amendments!

Amendment IV

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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment V

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 offence 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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI

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 defence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VIII

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

And I know what the Repubs are going to say, Bush has to declare youa combatant! Well!!!!!!!

Court rules in favor of enemy combatant By ZINIE CHEN SAMPSON, Associated Press
Writer

RICHMOND, Va. - The Bush administration cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it suspects of being an al-Qaida sleeper agent without charging him, a divided federal appeals court ruled Monday.

"To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the
country," the court panel said.

In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court.
It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.

He is currently the only U.S. resident held as an enemy combatant within the U.S.

Jose Padilla, another U.S. citizen, was held as an enemy combatant in a Navy brig for 3 1/2 years before he was hastily added to an existing case in Miami in November 2005, a few days before a U.S. Supreme Court deadline for Bush administration briefs on the question of the president's powers to continue holding him in military prison without charge.

Al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he moved with his wife and five
children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master's degree at Bradley University.

Al-Marri's lawyers argued that the Military Commissions Act, passed last fall to establish military trials after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, doesn't repeal the writ of habeas corpus — defendants' traditional right to challenge their
detention.

Answer 6

No. First, one must properly identify what it is the Bill actually guarantees. It isn't a free-for-all.

Answer 7

No it has not.

The same exact type of wire taps were used against the Mafia, and they were only trying to extort money, not kill us.

Answer 8

I say if it's purely to root out terrorists, then I'm all for it. Not for any other reason though.

Answer 9

No