You are in denial.
Legislators in two states, and in dozens of local governments, plus arguably hundreds of thousands of your peers, perhaps millions, express serious constitutional reservations about the entire thrust of the 'Act'.
Yet you insist its repugnancy is urban myth.
Dream on.
538 tpaine
What I've insisted upon is that you show actual legal text evidence to support your claims.
So far, you haven't. You probably won't, either.
In contrast, I've shown some of the actual legal text.
Hmmm... No evidence from one side; plenty of evidence from the other...I wonder who's more likely to be right?!
559 -Southhack-
Denial of the obvious is a strange maladay. Millions of americans see the evidence that the 'act' infringes ~in its totality~ upon our basic principles of liberty.
The list I posted before enumerated numerous 'acts' of congress that are, in essence, unconstitutional.
The 'patriot act' adds insult to these previous injuries.
Posting "actual legal text evidence" of the Acts violations would run thousands of words, already done by the states which have told the feds to take this act & stuff it.
You want 'legal' text? Read their deliberations.
"Posting "actual legal text evidence" of the Acts violations would run thousands of words, already done by the states which have told the feds to take this act & stuff it."
No, posting the actual legal text that you claim is unconstitutional would simply expose your argument as being based upon an oft-repeated urban myth.
Nor would it take much space or require many words. Each Section of the Patriot Act is comparitively small.
You could, as I've done already in this thread, post and cite a single problematic section with ease.
Well, you could at least post it easily. Finding and citing a Constitutional problem in the Patriot Act is considerably more difficult, primarily because there is no such Constitutional problem with the law.
And that fact leaves you in an uncomfortable position; you can't post and debate any of the actual legal text because doing so would further expose your lie.
Ergo, you have to find **other** ways in which to channel any debate on this subject (e.g. personal attacks, change of subject, distractions, etc.), rather than be caught cold with the actual legal text.
Which basicly means that you'll simply attempt to waste my time in any number of petty ways, rather than posting the actual legal text that you claim is unconstitutional.
Come on kid, post the legal text that you claim is specificly unconstitutional!
I dare you.
I challenge you.
And I'll continue to mock you if you don't.