Replies

My mistake, I forgot about the NY district court, but I doubt that ruling will stand.

However, do you have any idea what you are talking about when you say, "...it can't "technically" respond to anything in the Constitution, because case law actually defines what's permitted..."

No the constitution states what is permitted. When the parties bring a suit to court it is because one of the parties has an argument that "A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" HAS been violated. The court's job is to say yes or no, but the court doesn't determine what is allowed, the constitution does.

And I particularly like your argument, "it's quite obvious that the Patriot Act violates parts of precedent (an example would be the exclusionary rule in the forth amendment) in regard to the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and tenth amendments."

First of all starting off with, "obviously" or "clearly" is
generally for shorthand for, I can't actually make a strong argument for what I'm about to say. Secondly, "violates parts of precedent" Saying a law violates "parts of precedent" without describing the precedent makes no sense. Precedent is a higher court's interpretation of the law, that is then binding on lower courts, but without describing the particular prior holding that you believe has been violated, the phrase "violates" parts of precedent is meaningless.

Also, the phrase "violates the exclusionary rule" doesn't make sense. The exclusionary rule is a procedural rule that stands for the proposition that if evidence is siezed by means of an unlawful search, that evidence can not be used at trial, although there are exceptions to that rule. Threfore a law can not violate the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is something that the courts apply during a trial after it has been determined that evidence was siezed improperly.

As for your argument, "In addition, four state legislatures, and 363 communities have issued resolutions that spurn the Patriot Act." "Well how many cities have passed resolutions not allowing local police to enforce federal immigration laws" And what percentage of do those numbers represent 8% of states and .0001 percent of communities.

As for your most mature argument,

"The only people who support the Patriot Act are the naive, the paranoid, lockstep Bush supporters, and the spineless, opportunist Democrats that voted for it, because they're a. IDIOTS and b. worried about how they look."

Well I simply disagree, but then again if I couldn't articulate my argument very well, maybe I would just start calling people names. And speaking of paranoid, The FBI could be looking at your overdue copy of "Conspiracy Theory" right now.

And as for your, "some people want to be ruled by an authoritarian fist" comment. Well yes some people do, those people are cutting off the heads of American's in Iraq, but with legislation like the Patriot Act, their chances of getting what they want and imposing it on the rest of us is greatly reduced.

By the way, since most of the so-called contraversial portions of the Patriot Act, have actually been around in our counter drug laws for decades, I wonder how long have you have been outraged. The FBI has been able to conduct "sneak and peak" searches and "Roaming wire taps" on drug king pins for years and years, not a peep our of the far left, or the paranoid right. But we get those same laws extended to terrorist and we get the peanut gallery chanting, "They are coming to take me away."

As far as "Only lock step Bush supporters" support the patriot act. Well let's see, I oppose the president on his immigration policy, spending, so-called medicade reform, and his one man Clinton Rehab project just to name a few. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a kool aid drinker.

However, do you have any idea what you are talking about when you say, "...it can't "technically" respond to anything in the Constitution, because case law actually defines what's permitted..." Why, yes, I do. No the constitution states what is permitted. When the parties bring a suit to court it is because one of the parties has an argument that "A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" HAS been violated. The court's job is to say yes or no, but the court doesn't determine what is allowed, the constitution does. The Constitution does not say EXACTLY what’s permitted. How do you think that we got the “exclusionary rule” in the first place? Miranda v. Arizona -- that’s how. It doesn’t say anything about any “exclusionary rule,” in the Constitution -- it was defined by the court as a remedy against unlawful searches and seizures. And I particularly like your argument, "it's quite obvious that the Patriot Act violates parts of precedent (an example would be the exclusionary rule in the forth amendment) in regard to the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and tenth amendments." Also, the phrase "violates the exclusionary rule" doesn't make sense. The exclusionary rule is a procedural rule that stands for the proposition that if evidence is siezed by means of an unlawful search, that evidence can not be used at trial, although there are exceptions to that rule. Threfore a law can not violate the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is something that the courts apply during a trial after it has been determined that evidence was siezed improperly. Of course a law can violate the exclusionary rule -- or, if semantics is important -- render it meaningless. If the Patriot Act broadens, or adds to the exceptions of the exclusionary rule, then it is adding to the prior rulings, which have layed out what the current exceptions are: plain sight, independent source, good faith, etc. Under the Patriot Act -- just about anything could be a legal search -- torture, extortion, entrapment -- we don’t really know, do we? At least our Senators and Representatives don’t. As for your argument, "In addition, four state legislatures, and 363 communities have issued resolutions that spurn the Patriot Act." "Well how many cities have passed resolutions not allowing local police to enforce federal immigration laws" And what percentage of do those numbers represent 8% of states and .0001 percent of communities. Irrelevant. I wasn’t using this as extensive proof that the Patriot Act is bad -- just trying to say that there is, at least, a movment that is against it. And, Mr. Ad Populum, just because a majority of people believe something, doesn’t mean it’s true. It’s quite possible that that .0001 percent have it right. As for your most mature argument, "The only people who support the Patriot Act are the naive, the paranoid, lockstep Bush supporters, and the spineless, opportunist Democrats that voted for it, because they're a. IDIOTS and b. worried about how they look." You’re the one who challenged me with a contentious tone -- and I made an argument, which you tried to get around through semantics. In fact -- all you addressed were semantics, and not anything else. You don’t seem like a stupid person, and I would think that you would have heard the arguments against the Patriot Act, again, some of which have been substantial enough to strike down TWO broad provisions. Of course, I’ve heard the reactionary and hysterical arguments for it -- namely, that if we don’t turn this into a police state, then Jihadists are going to be hiding behind every end cap and pile-on. Well, no thank you. And as for your, "some people want to be ruled by an authoritarian fist" comment. Well yes some people do, those people are cutting off the heads of American's in Iraq, but with legislation like the Patriot Act, their chances of getting what they want and imposing it on the rest of us is greatly reduced. And the chances of our own government imposing anything on us is greatly increased. By the way, since most of the so-called contraversial portions of the Patriot Act, have actually been around in our counter drug laws for decades, I wonder how long have you have been outraged. The FBI has been able to conduct "sneak and peak" searches and "Roaming wire taps" on drug king pins for years and years, not a peep our of the far left, or the paranoid right. But we get those same laws extended to terrorist and we get the peanut gallery chanting, "They are coming to take me away." I’m against drug interdiction. I don’t like my tax money going to narco-pork any more than I like it going to Social Services. …his one man Clinton Rehab project LOL! That made me laugh, out loud. Hey, it’s cool, man. P.S. Can someone tell me how to put paragraphs in my HTML?