FEDERAL JUDGE RULES PARTS OF PATRIOT ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

MSNBC ^ | 1/26/04

[areafiftyone]

Federal Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act Unconstitutional. Just breaking on the ticker. Looking for more info!

[dljordan]

Yes. We keep garlic in our house and I haven't seen a single vampire. Well, it doesn't keep the IRS away.

[Godfollow]

Sounds like redefining is what is being called for here... if there are vagaries in sections of the PA they'll be fixed and we'll have a better PA than when first introduced.

Frankly my dear...

[ThinkDifferent]

Free speech in support of an Enemy has never been constitutional.

Huh? While saying "I support Saddam Hussein" is despicable, how is it not a constitutional exercise of free speech?

[Terriergal]

great way to put it!

Did you hear what part was ruled unconstitutional? 'giving advice to terrorist organizations.'

I guess I can understand that. You might get in trouble advising them to take their cause and shove it.

[Terriergal]

You assume that our court system is sane and has common sense.

IF it is not then why are any laws passed? Why don't we object to ALL of them? For all of them could be abused.

[tet68]

? For all of them could be abused.

All of them ARE abused, by some one.

[votelife]

Judges (and national security) are the two main reasons I support W. Here's a letter I sent him last year. I got a reply too.

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

[NYC Republican]

Just out of curiosity, which part of this takes away your freedom the most, providing expert advice to foreign terrorist organizations or providing assistance to them

Excellent!

[yonif]

bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations.

Stupid ruling. Terror organizations should not receive any uplifting. This should have stayed.

[yonif]

No expert would be called upon by terrorist groups to explain the greatness of non-violence.

bump

[NYC Republican]

Show us where one person's constitutional rights have been taken away. You can't.

No one can... Not him, not the ACLU, not Barbara Boxer - and believe me, they've all tried.

[LandofLincoln]

You don't say.

[Ingtar]

Except one day I expect to find that the Democrats have found a way to start labelling groups terrorists. I believe they will start with pro-lifers. "They blow up buildings and snipe Doctors, you know."

[thoughtomator]

Too bad Bush hasn't the (pick one: guts/desire) to take on judges.

[thoughtomator]

The problem with the designation being subject to review is that there is no notification provision, and an expectation that each and every organization on the planet reads the Federal Register is unreasonable.

As the USA PATRIOT Act stands, if a foreign organization finds out more than 30 days after it was listed in the Register that it has been designated a FTO, they do not even have the right to hire a lawyer, as any lawyer who consulted with them would be violating the act and would be prosecutable.

I thought the purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act was to allow different government agencies to communicate with each other on antiterror investigations? At least that's what I know from the AG's advocacy. This particular provision doesn't seem to be well-connected to the stated purpose of the law.

[Don Joe]

Any proof that these fears have come true?

didn't think so.

Any proof that they won't?

didn't think so.

Really, you anti-constitutionalists need to get another pony. That one trick is getting old.

In this country, the only reason necessary for getting rid of unconstitutional law is the fact that it is unconstitutional.

Anything short of that is a paved highway to monarchy -- or worse.

[Don Joe]

Why do we have to wait for something to actually happen?

Because history teaches us two lessons.

First, it teaches us that history repeats itself. Second, it teaches us that most people don't learn from history.

Remember the NYC gun registration, back in the 1960s? All guns had to be registered. All guns. And the lesson is apart from the nonsense entailed in the registration sceme (it wasn't "just" registration -- you had to file lots of paperwork, personal references, and then, get permission from the NYCPD -- after paying a nice fee).

When they first proposed that law, you see, the "spiritual forefathers" of the nastymouths in this thread mocked and taunted anyone who even suggested that they'd use the registration records to confiscate any of the firearms.

They were told to stop being paranoid, it'll never happen, don't be silly, show me where it's been abused, blah blah blah.

But then, guess what?

Ah, you guessed!

Yup. They used the registration records to confiscate firearms.

Any anticonstitutional power will be abused. It's not a question of "if", it's only a question of "when".

To argue that it hasn't been abused yet is beyond absurd. It's surreal. It's like finding an intruder in your house, and reaching for the phone to report a burglar, and then, the intruder protests: "Have I stolen anything yet?"

[ConservativeMan55]

Bump! Freep this poll until it glows!!!!!

[Don Joe]

As I read it: Prior to this decision If Osamma were to come to an Attorney and seek advice on how to disband Al Queda and surrender, the Attorney could be put in prison for advising him on how do it.

And, if on the way to the attorney's office, he (after getting a haircut, shave, and nice suit of clothes) stops at Walmart, and asks the guy at the deli, "How much for a pound of pastrami", the deli guy can be arrested for answering, "Six ninety five."

[Don Joe]

They could, but there would be a greater chance of an asteroid hitting than the govt. actually charging the attorney for trying to encourage a surrender...

You should have stopped after the first two words, and then paused, and considered, before proceeding with the rest of your thought.

These are the same justifications given in the aftermath of the reichstagg fire, to rationalize the need to give the Glorious Leader unconditional power.

Of course he would use it responsibly.

That much was understood.

Incorrectly, of course -- but "understood" just the same.

Just the same as I see happening in this thread. People chiming in to support an anticonstitutional law, on the basis that they don't believe the anticonstitutional powers would be abused.

If that don't make yer blood run cold, then stick a fork in it, we're done.