2007-10-11 18:12:11 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The Patriot Act is a rather large statutory scheme. I am sure that some parts could be interpreted in a way that would run afoul of Fourth Amendment protections.
For those who claim that the text of the Constitution should be disregarded because the Fourth Amendment did not consider the possibility of terrorist activities, this claim is based on a misunderstanding of the roots of the Fourth Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Most of the Bill of Rights can be traced back to English cases involving charges of treason against people who were plotting the violent overthrow of the government. The means may have changed, the nature of the actions have not.
The question for the Fourth Amendment is always about what a person reasonably expects to be private. Any form of communication involves a risk of public disclosure. How big that risk is depends on the nature of the communication and the permanency of that communication.
2007-10-11 19:33:36 · answer #1 · answered by Tmess2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do agree we must limit the power of the goverment to infringe on us.
With that said, I don't think anyone who authored the constitution could have imagined someone was going to fly planes into the WTC and kills thousands of innocent people, and could not have possibly predicted this or prepared for it.
Without the Patriot Act, there may not be a United States to defend. It is not the Patriot Act we should fear, it is the potential abuse that will do the most damage.
2007-10-12 01:24:24 · answer #2 · answered by trooper3316 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some parts of it do.
Two or three clauses of the Patriot Act have already been struck down on 4th amendment grounds and the government might be appealing them.
Most of it is constitutional.
2007-10-12 02:07:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
The Fourth amendment.
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.
2007-10-12 01:16:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and parts of it have already been ruled as such. Cases will be coming before the courts for years to come.
2007-10-12 01:16:26 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Only for the narrow minded.
2007-10-12 01:37:14 · answer #6 · answered by knightspepper p 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if you are a terrorist or a liberal.
2007-10-12 01:16:16 · answer #7 · answered by Curtis 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋