WITH A WHISPER, NOT A BANG (Patriot Act II signed by President on December 13, 2003)

San Antonio Current ^ | 12/24/03 | David Martin

[inquest]

Nonsense. Congress has Constitutional authority to regulate immigration and naturalization. There's nothing unconstitutional about not allowing banks to aid and abet the international wire transfers of the Illegally gotten proceeds of Illegal Aliens.

In fact, one would have to wonder if it's even consistent with earlier rulings for states to even recognize these cards. These are the same federal courts that would tell a state that it may not deny (generally available) medical benefits to illegals, because to do so would be "regulating immigration" (something allegedly off-limits to them). Yet for a state to set any kind of guidelines for the acceptance of these cards would also, by the same standard, be "regulating immigration".

[sandydipper]

Et tu Brutus? Drop your pants and bend over.

[Agitate]

This should not be classified as news, it is definately more Editorial.

[mrsmith]

"So?"
So I'm a conservative and believe there is value is history.

A warrant is not required for a policeman to search the person of a detainee, or in some other dire circumstances which are not "unreasonable".
You can't just leave "unreasonable" out of the 4th (without Amending the Constitution again) and it is basically on that basis that national security investigations are differentiated from criminal ones by the courts.
I am no lawyer, that's my understanding from "In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001"; haven't seen a ruling on National Security Letters.

There's an obvious conflict here between the president's Article II war powers and the 4th Amendment.
I prefer the FISA method of dealing with the conflict to this National Security Letter method- judicial review is maintained despite the "dire" circumstances.
That the Secret Service needs this power to protect the president from non-foreign threats is not at all clear to me.

[Agitate]

I confess I have only skimmed this thread because I am at work, But:

1. Doesn't the patriot act and this new act have expiration dates?
2. Aren't special provisions in order considering we are at war?

Please don't attack me--disagree, educate, but no attacks please.

[oceanview]

there are things called primaries, Bush 41 had alot of trouble with a TV talk show host.

[inquest]

Police may conduct a search where it's not possible to get a warrant because the trail is still hot. It's like the President being able to "repel sudden attacks" without getting a Congressional declaration of war. There's a world of difference between cases requiring immediate action, and the more routine day-to-day operations of government. That distinction is understood by the law, and has always been an implicit part of it, well before our country was even settled.

What you're talking about is something completely different. All someone in government has to do is claim that there's a "national security" justification, and presto!, everything he does is legal. There is nothing in the Constitution, or the legal framework in which it was written, that allows this legal concept. In fact, it was written with a view to combat that notion.

Now, the 4th amendment wasn't written so that the people conducting the searches would be the ones to decide whether the searches are reasonable. That was the job of judges. How did they communicate this determination to the people doing the searches? By issuing warrants. That's the system that was prescribed, and anything else is a clear departure from it.

[inquest]

And as a result of that trouble, we got Clinton. Your "power" over the President isn't what you seem to think it is. That's why it's best to work now to ensure that he doesn't have too much power over you.

[GregoryFul]

How could one be tried for breaking a "secret" law?

[mrsmith]

You agree searches do not require a warrant to be constitutional. You even add another example to mine.

But then you repeat that searches without a warrant are unconstitutional.

Courts use the "national security" standard just as it is courts who use the "hot pursuit" and "officer safety" standards for searches. Subsequent judicial reviews are available in all cases, though counterintelligence investigations often don't end up in court.

[inquest]

It's like this: Searching people's property without their consent is illegal. There are, however, a few ways that your illegal actions can be sanctified by the law. One way is to get a warrant. The other is through common-law concept known as "extenuating circumstances". That's where things like hot pursuit come into play. If you witness an illegal act, you are allowed (even expected, to a certain extent) to apprehend the ne'er-do-well.

"National security", being such a vaguely defined term, is not an extenuating circumstance for doing something illegal, unless someone's about to blow something up or something. Government's whole purpose is national security. If that became a reason to disobey the law, then law simply doesn't apply to government. I don't know what the specific logician's term for it is, but you're employing a logical device that essentially destroys the foundations on which it is based.

[michigander]

Report to Congress on Implementation of Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act, July 17, 2003

[michigander]

How could one be tried for breaking a "secret" law?

One would have to be charged by the Executive branch that is supposed to uphold the laws.

---

Source:
Statement by the President
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
The White House
December 13, 2003

Section 106 enacts by reference certain requirements set forth in the joint explanatory statement of the House-Senate committee of conference or in a classified annex. The executive branch continues to discourage this practice of enacting secret laws and encourages instead appropriate non-binding uses of classified schedules of authorizations, classified annexes to committee reports, and joint statements of managers that accompany the final legislation.

---

It appears that there was much about this bill that the President didn't care for, but, he signed it anyway.
It will be interesting to see how the Supremeos rule when his objections are contested.
I'll guess that he hopes the Executive branch does better than We the People did with the 30/60 day provisions of CFR.

[secretagent]

mark

[Captiva]

Doesn't the patriot act and this new act have expiration dates?

Probably..... Just like the 1994 Brady Bill/Law re firearms.

[Beck_isright]

This is indeed a dark year. Remember everyone, the conservatives and Pubbies will not have control of the Federal infrastructure forever. Currently the liberals control the courts. If a Hitlery or someone of her ilk take control of the country, what would happen to FR or freedom minded individuals? I shudder to think what will happen.

[farmfriend]

I'm not going to read the whole thread. Just wanted to make sure you saw it. Forgive me if you have already been here.

[LPM1888]

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

"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."

The search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. Most people instinctively understand the concept of privacy. It is the freedom to decide which details of your life will be revealed to the public and which will be revealed only to those you care to share them with. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.

The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel or whatever, if:

the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or
the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued.

Sinkspur, I guess you don't think the Fourth Amemdment is an important part of your life but I consider it an important part of mine.

[eno_]

Probably..... Just like the 1994 Brady Bill/Law re firearms.

This is why it would be MUCH MUCH better to declare a state of emergency and explicitly suspend Constitutional rights for a limited time.

We have been operating under a permanent state of emergency since WWII. The government has literally given itself the power to ignore the Constitution whenever it pleases on an ongoing, periodically renewed basis. As a result, the Patriot Act is just the most recent horror is a series of horrors that has eroded Consitutional protections.

Conservative like me are not "hysterical" about the Patriot Act. We are well aware it is only an "incremental change." But it is an incremental change in the wrong direction on top of a pile of previous assaults on the Constitution.

"So what?" the jackboot lickers will no doubt ask. Well, this is what: You can count me and my children OUT of any effort to fight for a nation that has abandoned its Consitution. Call me when it is restored. Until then, Ashcroft, Ridge and the rest can go to hell. It is not the "act" of a "Patriot" to support the further destruction of our Constitution.

Is mine an isolated case of disillusionment? Ask a recruiter. The armed foreces are in DEEP recruiting trouble.