fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Funny - I could say the exact same thing about Roe v. Wade.
Stealth Propaganda
- Thread starter shagdrum
- Start date
Funny - I could say the exact same thing about Roe v. Wade.
Odd - your rights start when you are 'born' foss - it takes a constitutional amendment to change this one... Ask any judge - even everyone's favorite conservative... Scalia. The Patriot Act just disregards the 4th, without repealing it.
Interesting how my reading of the actual act as well as studying relevant precedents leads me to conclude that what you are claiming is a gross and misleading exaggeration.
You still haven't answered my question; have you considered the idea that maybe the Patriot Act wasn't as radical as anti-Bush rhetoric characterized it as?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Again, failing to read and understand my posts - tsk tsk. Think outside the box, fox - don't be so myopic. Linear thinking seems to be your specialty.
So, outside the box, what are you talking about...
And Shag, no I don't think my dislike of the unpatriot act has anything to do with 'anti-bush' sentiment. It is unconstitutional. One of the many unconstitutional things it does is that allows the government to grant warrants without probable cause and search your house and business. That is unconstitutional. To allow that the 4th would have to be knocked down. It hasn't, therefore the law as it stands is against the constitution. Ever wonder why the cases against the unpatriot act aren't appealed to higher courts by the government? They know it is unconstitutional, and don't want it looked at by the SCOTUS.
You asked...
You still haven't answered my question; have you considered the idea that maybe the Patriot Act wasn't as radical as anti-Bush rhetoric characterized it as?
Define radical in this case - I believe unconstitutional is radical.PORTLAND, Ore. - Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
As far as I know this case has not been appealed... I will call and find out.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't prove that the bill is unconstitutional. Don't give me news stories that simply echo cherry picked, judicial activist interpretations of the Constitution. It only proves that judge thinks it is unconstitutional.
Give me specific provisions in the bill and specific areas in the Constitution that are, in no uncertain terms, being ignored by the bill.
In short, make the case.
So, you are saying that the attorneys in the case I quoted (and there are quite a few of these types of cases shag) didn't make their case? Why should I have to 'remake' the case? The federal level judge ruled against the US Government.
Here is the case - you can read for yourself the two provisions that have been deemed unconstitutional and in fact have now been overturned...
And yes, this case has not yet been appealed, and there are no future plans for the US Attorney's office to pursue the case any further.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Moving the goalposts. Per your statements, legislation can only be unconstitutional after a judge says it is.
I think if you are going to be assert with certainty that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, then you should be able point out where and how it, specifically, is unconstitutional.
If you can't do that, it gives the impression you are simply parroting talking points about an issue that you don't understand...
Been there done that... link here
I must have missed where you actually made the case. Paste some parts of the act, of debates, etc.; you insinuated, implied and what not, but you never concretely and specifically made the case.
If I am missing something then could you paste it here?