Tell me what you think =D
2007-09-24 09:17:35 · 14 answers · asked by C R O W N C L O W N 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It's amazing how many people think that the constitution requires a warrant before a search can be carried out.
The constitution doesn't mention warrants at all.
It says, " unreasonable search "
Who defines unreasonable ???
2007-09-24 09:54:35 · answer #1 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many parts of the Patriot act are in direct opposition to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
But the judicial system, which bestowed it's own powers upon itself have decided that most of it is "legal". If I made up my own rules then I would obviously say bs was legal.
It is crap and our founding fathers have to be freaking out and wondering how this country went from brave, industrious and hard working, to scared, lazy and sheep.
Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”
And that is where we are at.
2007-09-24 09:29:54 · answer #2 · answered by Gem 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The patriot act is the law. Thus it is by definition legal.
Next
The supreme court has already heard and ruled on many aspects of the patriot act and with some exceptions found it within the bounds of the constitution. Thus again, by definition legal.
Patriot act has nothing to do with enforcing the bill of rights. The patriot act is about the common defense. This gets a little stickly legally as if the country is working for the common defense then there are a great many things they can do beyond simple criminal prosecution and investigation.
2007-09-24 09:22:47 · answer #3 · answered by Jeff Engr 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
One aspect I don't like is the wire tapping part of it. I don't mind wire tapping per sé but to do so without a warrent violates the Constitution. If they would make a warrent within 30 days after the tapping starts and tell only a judge I could still live with it but the Adminstration interprets it as not having to have a warrent at all ever. That one violation of the Constitution negates the rest of the so called "patriot" act as far as I am concerned.
2007-09-24 09:24:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
as you know the Patriot Act was enacted after 9/11
it is the beginning of limiting our rights as stated in the bill of rights and the rest of the constitution.
i think as time goes on we will see more limits placed on us as citizens of the "free world". (haha)
the one portion that is in heated debate right now is with communications:
Bush wants our emails, computer transmissions, telephone messages, etc all to be accessible to the government without informing the citizens or without a warrant.
As of a few weeks ago the judicial branch put this on hold on has stated that WE need to be notified when our emails, telephone messages, and computer transmissions are being monitored...so this is being fought out in WDC right now.
this is just the beginning, i fear.
good luck :)
2007-09-24 09:27:37 · answer #5 · answered by Blue October 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Patriot act is legal. It has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. There were no telephones when the Constitution was written.
2007-09-24 09:25:23 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Breaking it and ask any constitutional scholar, it should be illegal.
This is where the Supreme Court needs to step up to the plate and strike down the law. Too bad that most of them are lap dogs for the GOP, instead of patriots.
2007-09-24 09:21:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
The Patriot's Act was illegal. That's why Bill Bellichek and the Patriots were fined by the NFL. :)
2007-09-24 09:26:22 · answer #8 · answered by tobi 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Do you have something to hide. I don't, just the liberals have this problem.I'm a Patriot and served aboard the USS VALCOUR AVP55 .I love my country and respect the office of the President even if I'm not a BUSH fan.
Shaneladd what was taken away from you??? Marbles !
2007-09-24 09:26:21 · answer #9 · answered by pretzgolf 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It violates the Bill of Rights as it authorizes government search and seizure of citizens property without a warrant from a judge. It sucks, man!
2007-09-24 09:23:29 · answer #10 · answered by Shane 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋