how does the patriot act violate the constitution?
157210
It violates the 6th amendment in that it allows the government to jail citizens indefinately without a trial. This also violates the 13th amendment (punishment without conviction). It violates the 4th amendment in that it allows wiretapping, survalience of internet use,  and disclosure of library records without probable cause. It violates the first amendment in that it criminalizes ANY discussion of specific FBI searches. \n\nBad legislation from the worst administration EVER.
949
Many aspects of the Patriot Act are uncontested; in fact, Nadine Strossen of the ACLU has stated that she agrees with over 90% of the provisions of the Patriot Act.  It's only a few provisions that are hotly contested\n\nIt largely tries to unify communication among several departments and provide easier access for law enforcement officers.  Online information was difficult to obtain before 9/11; access to judges was slower and required more paperwork; and more hoops were required before action could be taken.\n\nThe Patriot Act doesn't remove the safeguards, but streamlines and simplifies them.  For the most part, the same sorts of safeguards are in place, just with different requirements that are less burdensome on government.\n\nMany provisions are loudly decried in public, but few people ever discuss specific provisions of the Patriot Act they disapprove of.  Most of it seems to be mass hysteria without any specific citation of violations.  When the biggest complaint is that someone may look at your library record, it doesn't seem to be THAT violative of privacy.\n\nI've included links to the Department of Justice's defense of the Act, as well as the ACLU's criticism.  I hope that balances the views.
2954
President Bush is a conservative with religious incentives.  \n\nWhile I understand what he is attempting, I do not agree with all of his methods.  He is mandated to protect the United States which justifies entering the war on terrorism as a response to the multiple terrorist attacks which have occurred within the United States.  However, the Patriot act has aspects which are at odds with the Constitution.\n\nAt the same time the economy is doing far better than most people understand.  This is countered by the increasing federal budget deficit.
21688
Love your country, distrust your government.  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," Benjamin Franklin.  The US Patriot Act is very very unpatriotic.  It literally strips away your Constitutional Rights.  Hitler burned the Reichstag building when he became Chancelor.  Then blamed it on Poland.  The Bush Administration caused 911 to happen and then they blamed Afganistan and Iraq.  The media is completely saturated with propaganda.  Currently, the United States is run by a military industrial complex and most Americans are blind to that.  Many people say you shouldn't believe what you read on the internet, but it's the internet that has complete and total freedom to communicate the truth and what's really going on.  All other media is controlled and propagated.  Do the research.  Find the truth.  We must take our county back from these treasonous "leaders."
929278
It is conservative in the sense that it prevents certain actions which some consider risky, and requires behaviors and conformity that many consider important for security.\n\nThe Patriot Act is a messy piece of legislation in some areas, but it doesn't actually reduce any civil liberties. It just reduces privacy in areas where people interact with businesses and other organizations. That's not friendly, but it's not unconstitutional.\n\nThere are plenty of laws passed in the past year or three that are unconstitutional, including the Military Commissions Act. Those are the threats to civil liberties, because those deliberately and systematically say the constitution can be ignored at will.\n\n{EDIT} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \n\nAnd for those who keep asking what civil liberties we've lost, here are the most recent. Denial of right to counsel. Denial of due process. Abrogation of the confrontation clause. Denial of the right against self-incrimination. Denial of the right to assemble. Denial of the right to petition for redress of grievances. Loss of habeas corpus. \n\nThose were MY rights that were taken. Just because I've never had a need to invoke them doesn't make them any less mine. And just because you haven't needed them yet doesn't make them any less yours.\n\nAs a society, we only have those rights we choose to defend. Only those rights we can defend. And if we do not defend them, we lose them. Once, and for all of us.
717473
You must not know how politicians work or how bills work. If you did you would understand why a bill gets turned down. Example the Republicans named the bill the Patriot Act who would vote againist that? They dont name it the civl liberties reduction act, then it wouldnt get passed.
869510
When you begin telling people that certain legal activities cannot take place that is deprivation of personal liberties.  When you decide any religion is offensive, it is a violation of the United States Constitution...When you take away the right to own property through Imminent Domain it is an infringement on personal property rights that are pillars of democracy  that violate the United States Constitution.  You cannot shout Fire in an occupied building and expect for it to be considered Free Speech or insult people different than yourself because of race or gender, there are limits.....Becoming too politically correct, being the thought and food police under the guise of liberty is really a ruse to infringe upon individual liberty one by one until your government has become socialist/communist.  That is never a good thing.
915525
Absouletly. IT should be repealed ASAP. It destorys habeus corpeus and violates the civil rights of the american people. IT also redefines the geneva convention for the united states to interept at their own will. It sets the road for a military dicatorship in the united states, in the form of a facist police state using federal agencies like the department of homeland security as a front.  It clearly violates the united states constitution and puts our country in a hardline stance that violates everything that we stand for. It also gives the ability for them to classify american citizens as enemy combantants, and allows for them to be punished without trial or jury.
142252
The Patriot Act did not create any new laws, only consolidated existing ones, so terrorism has nothing to do with it.  The government, with reasonable premises and a sometimes a court order, can pull IMs and phone logs for a number of reasons, just being that they believe you or her were involved in any crime they are investigating.
983891
The problem with the Patriot Act is that while it does provide a clause allowing judicial oversight, Title IV Section 412 includes provisions for judicial review in detentions, and Title II deals with warrant requirements for electronic surveillance, it does not make this oversight mandatory.\n\nThis means that these provisions are allowed to go unenforced. You see, the Executive Branch is in charge of this enforcement. So what we are seeing now and basically have a wide-open window to is when the laws get in the way of what Bush wants to accomplish, he just chooses not to enforce them.\n\nAlso, the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments are limitations on government action, and apply to anyone under US authority or control. Nowhere does it mention 'citizen'.\n\nAs far as warrantless wiretapping, 50 U.S.C. §1801 et al. Warrantless wiretapping is illegal under FISA if any US citizen or resident alien is a party to the conversation. Also 18 U.S.C. § 2511: Compliance with FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance... may be conducted". The Patriot Act runs head to head into legalities here.
696836
In essence, the rule says that any evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights cannot be admitted as evidence in the trial, unless one of several exemptions apply. The main controversy in this area is that guilty people can get off when there is no other evidence to convict. However, I think it is well worth letting a few guilty people go free to protect the rights granted in the constitution. If the rule did not exist, there would be little reason for the cops to follow the constitution, since their illegal evidence would still get the job done.
924630
You don't have the legal right to take the law into your own hands. That would itself be a crime! We have a Patriot Act in this country among other provisions for dealing with terrorism at the state and federal level. Just because the police don't "appear" to be acting, doesn't mean that they are not investigating the matter. Leave police work to the professionals and don't try to be a vigilante. It will only backfire and land you in jail.
599108
How about:\nUSA PATRIOT Act, that was certainly controversial.\nH. R. 3162\n\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR:\n\nFor research tips:\n\nTHE BEST WAY to research legislative history is to go the Library of Congress. They keep the record of ALL hearings on the bill(both committee and floor) and any statements made by congressmen and any other people that Congress has questioned regarding the bill etc etc etc.\n\nThe website given by previous answerer will help:\nIt is the website of the library of congress:\n\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov\n\nI would also suggest reading this site(it is very helpful):\nhttp://www.llsdc.org/sourcebook/fed-leg-hist.htm\n\nSome trivia:\nSupreme Court Justice Scalia hates legislative history, and considers it not useful.\nHe once was quoted to say something to the tone of:\n"I had to exile my clerk to the dungeon to dig through useless pile of legislative junk"\nSo you are not alone in being frustrated with legislative history.\n\nP.S. I hope you are paid for this thankless task.
522623
How are our immigration laws unconstitutional? The Constitution applies to AMERICAN CITIZENS.
51221
Unfortunately, the current administration is adept at using labels to disguise the real intent of laws and other actions. For example, the "Clean Air Act" actually encouraged more pollution that before. The Patriot Act encourages violations of our constitution and a strengthening of the executive branch. Some aspects are worthwhile, but the name makes it difficult to object to its details without being called unpatriotic. Sad to see the stifling of legitimate criticism. \nAs far as a better title, perhaps the Surveillance Act?
386923
The first amendment says freedom of speech.\nThe Patriot Act allows the government to spy on you and arrest you if you "say" you're planning terrorism.\n\nThat's one link.
574647
im afraid of that.  they called it the patriot act so we wouldall feel bad for hating it?? huh?? well i dont feel bad.  thats just creepy.  just think about it.  you could be being watched right now, and not know it, and thats not even against the law because its the law thats doing it...its not fair. were gonna all feel like prisoners soon.