[inquest]

kesg: The Constitution doesn't prohibit reasonable searches and seizures, and I have seen nothing in the Patriot Act or its implementation that leads me to conclude that any of its procedures are unreasonable.

mrsmith: Everyone (even people who only watch television!) is aware that secret searches have been used by our police and knows this is no power granted by the Patriot Act.

The problem I have with both of these sentiments is that if the things that the PATRIOT Act "allows" (I use the term tentatively) are already allowed by the Constitution, then why do we need a PATRIOT Act? Since Congress doesn't have the power to enlarge the powers of the federal government by statute, it makes me more than a tad suspicious to see this kind of legislation.

[mrsmith]

"are already allowed by the Constitution, then why do we need a PATRIOT Act?"

Well, in this case, it's to say what is a "reasonable" search.

Our Founders, with their appreciation of the separation of powers, meant for that to be determined by our elected officials and the courts, rather than by a policeman.

[kesg]

The problem I have with both of these sentiments is that if the things that the PATRIOT Act "allows" (I use the term tentatively) are already allowed by the Constitution, then why do we need a PATRIOT Act?

Because Congress has the power to declare certain types of searches to be reasonable or unreasonable, or to regulate the procedure for such searches.