The Instigator
supremecourt101
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
MoonDragon613
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

The patriot act is constitutional.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,832 times Debate No: 3232
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

supremecourt101

Con

There is no possible way on earth that the patriot act is supported by the constitution. In the U.S. supreme court case Katz v. United States, the high court ruled that warrentless wiretaps are unconstitutional. Warentless wiretaps are one of the main ways the U.S. patriot act spies on U.S. citizens. The P.A. is also in violation of the 4th amendment, which states that warrentless searches and seizures are unconstitutional. The supreme court also ruled in Katz that things said are also evidence that cannot be take w/o a warrent. My second reason is that the Patriot Act's "sneak-and-peek" seizures are clearly unconstitutional. They are searches of a person's house w/o a warrent while the person isn't home. The FBI/CIA only informes them of the search days later.
MoonDragon613

Pro

Properly speaking, once legislation has been reviewed by the Federal Courts (i.e. Supreme and Circuit Courts), the issue of constitutionality is no longer a matter of opinion. It becomes a matter of fact.

And as a matter of fact, the Patriot Act IS Constitutional. Take the case of John Doe v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General. (126 S. Ct. 1)

The Supreme Court upheld the Patriot Act despite the contention of the American Civil Liberties Union which argued that part of it violated the First Amendment.

Therefore, although some of us think it SHOULD be unconstitutional, whether or not it IS constitutional is in the hands of the Supreme Court, which has upheld it.
Debate Round No. 1
supremecourt101

Con

supremecourt101 forfeited this round.
MoonDragon613

Pro

Properly speaking, once legislation has been reviewed by the Federal Courts (i.e. Supreme and Circuit Courts), the issue of constitutionality is no longer a matter of opinion. It becomes a matter of fact.

And as a matter of fact, the Patriot Act IS Constitutional. Take the case of John Doe v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General. (126 S. Ct. 1)

The Supreme Court upheld the Patriot Act despite the contention of the American Civil Liberties Union which argued that part of it violated the First Amendment.

Therefore, although some of us think it SHOULD be unconstitutional, whether or not it IS constitutional is in the hands of the Supreme Court, which has upheld it.
Debate Round No. 2
supremecourt101

Con

supremecourt101 forfeited this round.
MoonDragon613

Pro

MoonDragon613 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MoonDragon613 8 years ago
MoonDragon613
See, in my regular day to day interactions, I am obligated by social etiquette and of course practical considerations to treat idiots and morons such as you (Jason) with a modicum of respect, pretending to not see their tangible stupidity and avoiding the unbearable temptation to treat them with a mixture of condescension and contempt.

However Here, I have no obligation whatsoever and I could feel free to blast people such as yourself with the cognitive abilities of a sea sponge with the appropriate level of scorn that you deserve. Someone at your level of intelligence should keep your stupidity to yourself. It'll make the world a better place and people just might, maybe, think a little better of you if you just keep your mouth shut and your hands away from the keyboard.
Posted by JasonMc 8 years ago
JasonMc
Ha! Con forfeited his last 2 rounds and still won. Probably because pro calls people idiots / morons when they make comments contrary to his positions. I thought both Ragnar and zakkuchan had very valid points. I would expect to encounter some opposing viewpoints on a website called debate.org.

Moondragon has clearly got some insecurity issues. He insults people to put himself up on high and somehow lessen them at the same time in order to compensate for the fact that he's trying to make up for his own shortcomings. Some therapy may be in order.
Posted by zakkuchan 8 years ago
zakkuchan
no matter how much statutory power it has*
Posted by zakkuchan 8 years ago
zakkuchan
Well, I don't know how personal attacks help anyone, but oh well.

As you said, constitutional means "in alignment with the United States Constitution." But the Constitution is vague on many points; for example, it's not even clear that your beloved Supreme Court has any authority to judge constitutionality. This ambiguity is intentional, and the direct result of it is that people interpret the document differently. Thus, constitutionality is subjective; and therefore, the opinion of a court, no matter how statutory power it has, is no more worthy of consideration than any other opinion.

To say something should be unconstitutional would be to say that the framers should have written an explicit denial of it into the document. Obviously, such considerations have no practical application (besides perhaps amending the Constitution, but that's a pretty tough process), so the only practical question to ask is if it IS Constitutional - which, as I said, is subjective, and leads to the sort of value judgment most 'should' statements lead to.
Posted by MoonDragon613 8 years ago
MoonDragon613
It's stupidity of this caliber that somehow just draws me back even when I'm busy.

First to zakkuchan:
You're an idiot. "the PATRIOT Act is staturorily constitutional, but the topic statement doesn't specify that."
The topic statement is whether or not the Patriot Act is constitutional. I specifically distinguished this from the question of whether or not the Patriot Act SHOULD be constitutional. If the law is statutorily constitutional, it is constitutional. That's the definition of constitutional.

Leading me to the second moron
To Ragnar Rahl:
Shut up. Go away. You have no right to comment here with this sorry excuse of a post. Read the arguments of supremecourt101 (who knows nothing about the supreme court apparently). In the context of the debate, constitutional is defined as in alignment with the United States Constitution. If you haven't realized it then you have the intelligence of a goldfish. Swim away goldfish.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
Properly speaking, once legislation has been reviewed by the Federal Courts (i.e. Supreme and Circuit Courts), the issue of constitutionality is no longer a matter of opinion."

Dictionary
constitutional |ˌkänstəˈt(y)oō sh ənl| adjective 1 of or relating to an established set of principles governing a state : a constitutional amendment.

If it's of a specific set of principles, the truth of the matter is in the nature of the principles in the consitution and the nature of the act. The courts have nothing to do with it. Argue about reality all day, but no court can arbitrarily declare what reality is, and if it attempts it it will not change the fact.
Posted by zakkuchan 8 years ago
zakkuchan
MoonDragon, your logic is faulty. All you've proven is that the PATRIOT Act is staturorily constitutional, but the topic statement doesn't specify that. You have to argue why the topic should be restricted like that if you want to do so.
Posted by left_wing_mormon 8 years ago
left_wing_mormon
Ineteresting to see how MoodDragon takes this challenge.
Posted by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
Amen supremecourt101. The PATRIOT ACT is such a crock.
Posted by willhenry20 8 years ago
willhenry20
I thought you were arguing Pro at first by looking at the headline and got so angry that anyone could possibly think that the patriot act is constitutional. We need to do something about the patriot act rather than sitting here accepting whatever fate the government gives us.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by C4747500 8 years ago
C4747500
supremecourt101MoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by eweb53 8 years ago
eweb53
supremecourt101MoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by independent 8 years ago
independent
supremecourt101MoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ecstatica 8 years ago
ecstatica
supremecourt101MoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Edged33333 8 years ago
Edged33333
supremecourt101MoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by zakkuchan 8 years ago
zakkuchan
supremecourt101MoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03