Claiming that the Patriot Act violates the Bill of Rights doesn't make the act constitutional. The Patriot act actually protects your First Amendment. With no safety of the country there is no freedom or individual rights. If the country is under attack by a terrorist, the country is under danger. If places are being bombed, buildings like the Twin Towers are being crashed with planes then you would be scared to even look out the window… Where there’s no safety there are no rights or freedom. Therefore the Patriot Act is protecting the individual rights and the freedom of people, by ensuring the people’s safety. If the Patriot Act was violating the people’s rights then it wouldn’t be fighting for our safety which is also one of the number 1 priority and right that the people have.
The purpose of the Patriot Act is to protect the welfare of the people. This is undoubtedly good, and almost everyone can agree that government is established to do this. However, the main area of conflict is the fact that this act allows the government to spy on people, arrest suspected terrorists and not give them a public trial, and many other offenses. And people say that these are unconstitutional because it violates the Bill Of Rights.
Clearly this does violate the Bill Of Rights, HOWEVER, this does not make the act unconstitutional. First of all, the governments job is to improve the welfare of the people. Secondly, when the welfare of the common people are threatened, the government must take the necessary actions to ensure the common defense of the people. This is stated in the Preamble and Article I Section 9. While this isn't directly stated, people must be reminded that the Constitution was written in General terms, so the Constitutionality of a law is left to be determined by the Supreme Court. And The Supreme Court Has agreed with this notion.
Example 1, Korematsu vs United States. FDR passed an executive order to move all Japanese-American people to move to internment camps. Korematsu refused to move to an internment camp under the grounds that the law was unconstitutional because it violated his rights. So after being heard the Supreme Court agreed that his rights were in fact violated, however, THEY DID NOT AGREE THAT THE LAW WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They said that in times of war or when the common good of the people is in danger, the government must do what is necessary to preserve the Union and protect the people.
Example Two, Abrams vs United States. Abrams was sending anti-draft papers to WW1 recruits. He violated the Sedition Act of 1918 and was sentenced to 15-20 years imprisonment. He appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that the law was unconstitutional under the grounds that the law violated his right of free speech. Again, the Court clearly saw that the law did violate the right of free speech, BUT THEY DEEMED THE LAW CONSTITUTIONAL. They stated that the speech exercised by Abrams was used to undermine Congressional law (the Draft). The Draft was crucial in defending the welfare of the people and the Sedition Act was also crucial in defending the Draft, therefor Abrams was guilty.
Congress can suspend almost any right if necessary in order to protect the rights and welfare of the people. But the actions taken to secure this goal must be justifiable to the imminent danger the "Threat" Poses. So does the Patriot Act take necessary and justifiable actions to achieve this Goal.
Yes. 9\11 may have happened in 2001, but the Patriot Act has prevented 100's if not thousands of terrorist acts. Al Qaeda is not our only enemy that commits terrorist acts. Lets not forget Anarchists, Hezbollah, Chechen Rebels, HAMAS, FARC-EP, and etc.
First, sure we all looooovvveeee our freedom. Unlike you all, I respect my RIGHT to privacy. The act was created in response to a terrorist attack as we all know. I hate to break it to you all, but the Patriot act, get ready...Has successfully prevented/stopped ZERO attacks from happening. The act was used as a gateway for governmental interference and spying on citizens. Maybe it was just a heat of the moment thing, but it has done nothing and should be abolished. I'm order to fakn security, FREEDOM and PRIVACY should not be sacrificed, as our nation was created for the sole purpose of giving these freedoms.
Quick example story, just to prove that anyone who says this law is good is a complete fool.
After the Boston marathon, people's rights to leave their homes was revoked for "security". Police were breaking into homes without warrants, aiming guns at families, including children. The people had no say in the matter, the government revoked all of their rights to do this. The person who did the attack was found by someone out of their house. Not by police storming into houses pointing weapons at innocent people and threatening children with guns in their faces. Those innocent people weren't criminals. They had rights, but the government took them away for "security". Pointing guns at children??? The government has no right to take away the rights of anyone. Its wrong and does nothing. It doesn't aid security. Its an abuse of power. The people of the nation were in charge last I checked and they should make the choice on whether the police should bust into homes without warrants and aim loaded weapons at the bodies of children. And if you think this is OK you are mistaken. Security and our rights are both given by the government equally. You don't sacrifice one for the other.
No, the Patriot act is not good legislation in the United States, because it is too intrusive. The Patriot Act was based on people's fears. The legislature got the act to pass because people were afraid of terrorism, not because it is good law. The act allows too much government intrusion into people's personal lives.
I do not believe in this time that the US Patriot Act is a good legislation. When it first came out, many Americans were for it, because the policies were a great idea after September 11th. Since its been almost 13 years since then, the Patriot Act has gotten worse instead of better. We are being spied on and constantly checked by the TSA even though it seems unnecessary.