Federal judge rules 2 provisions of Patriot Act unconstitutional

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: butterbut The terrorists are hiding behind their "civil liberties". They found our weakness. We can't catch them without "violating" the constitution.

If we violate our rights and our way of life to catch terrorists, we have lost our way of life, and new terrorists will spring up to fill the vacuum left by the ones we catch. We gain nothing. The terrorists win.

Quote by: butterbut LOL, He is not destroying the Constitution, he just has a different interpertation of it. One that will make sure our throats don't get cut.

Will it? How do you know that? And how do you respond to the intelligence reports that say we are LESS safe now?

There is nothing he can be impeached for or they would have done it already.

Until 2006 both houses of Congress, the place in which impeachment is done, were controlled by his party. Care to rethink your statement?

Its amusing how ya'll absoulutely hate the guy.

I don't hate anyone in this world. I get angry when I see that people still support a leader that has so blatantly destroyed our way of life for no good reason.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Mr. Jaggers Well, Mr. Enready, Mr. Chancellor maintains that the federal courts lack jurisdiction to "interpret" the Constiturion; and therefore, the ruling of the United States District Court striking down the two provisions of the Patriot Act of 2001 as violating the provisions of the Fourth Amendment would, according to his position, be invalid - unless, of course, he happened to agree with the outcome. That would be a very different case, you see.

You really need to STOP misrepresenting what I've said!!!!! If you're going to disagree with me then you damned well had better get it right!

A District Court (or SCOTUS) finding a particular piece of legislation "unconstitutional" is NOT an act of "interpreting" the Constitution itself.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Chancellor You really need to STOP misrepresenting what I've said!!!!! If you're going to disagree with me then you damned well had better get it right! A District Court (or SCOTUS) finding a particular piece of legislation "unconstitutional" is NOT an act of "interpreting" the Constitution itself.

You are actually proving his point.

His point is that when you agree, politically, with the Court's decision, you say it is a Constitutional part of their power to do what they are doing, etc.

When you disagree with the Court's decision you say it is "unconstitutional interpretation" by the Supreme Court.

[Praxius]

Oh and here is another perfect example of evidence that should go forth with any impeechment on bush and his administration..... crude directing, but the info is right there:

ShoutWire - The Ultimate Proof Bush And Co. Lied

It's quite apparent the country is devided and the only way to unite is to seek actual justice for those responsible, both for the Patriot Act, and everything else this administration has done thus far, and contiues to do so.

[Mia]

Good - all I wonder is how long will it take to dismantle the rest of this piece of garbage?

[Mr. Jaggers]

It would go a lot faster if the Congress would just repeal the Patriot Act in its entirety; for it will take a long time for the federal courts to stike down its several provisions through the process of judicial review.

[Mia]

That's exactly what they want - to hold on to it as long as possible. Vestiges of it will remain no matter what. Back-door bs. They knew it would be deemed unconstitutional from the get-go.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Mr. Jaggers It would go a lot faster if the Congress would just repeal the Patriot Act in its entirety; for it will take a long time for the federal courts to stike down its several provisions through the process of judicial review.

It would, but that would require backbone.

Letting the courts do it piecemeal serves several purposes for the legislature:

They are seen as "doing something" to prevent terrorism when they pass the act.

They maintain popularity with voters who agree with the act by not repealing it while appeasing those who disagree with it since their side ultimately wins when the provisions are thrown out.

They blame the courts for any negatives that occur as a result of the overturning, thus propping up the calls to end the independent judiciary.

[Mr. Jaggers]

The Patriot Act contains a “severability” clause:

Sec. 2. CONSTRUCTION ; SEVERABILITY.
Any provisions of this Act held to be invalid or unenforceable by it terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, shall be construed so as to five it the maximum effect permitted by law, unless such holding shall be one of utter invalidity, in which event such provision shall be deemed severable from this Act and shall not affect the remainder thereof or the application of such provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other, dissimilar circumstances.

The Fourth Amendment ruling, however, strikes at the guts of the Act.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Mr. Jaggers The Patriot Act contains a “severability” clause: Sec. 2. CONSTRUCTION ; SEVERABILITY. Any provisions of this Act held to be invalid or unenforceable by it terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, shall be construed so as to five it the maximum effect permitted by law, unless such holding shall be one of utter invalidity, in which event such provision shall be deemed severable from this Act and shall not affect the remainder thereof or the application of such provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other, dissimilar circumstances. The Fourth Amendment ruling, however, strikes at the guts of the Act.

Does the clause really say, "so as to five it"? That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Praxius]

Up to 5 provisions can be found void. After that apparently you need good reason to attempt to void them.... even though all of the provisions could be potientially useless/unconstitutional.

[Osborn F Enready]

I don't even see why the "Patriot Act" is considered valid, and why the people who voted for it aren't impeached yet.

They didn't read it, before they voted on it, and regardless of how that negligence is played off, it is DIRECT and pre-meditated GROSS NEGLIGENCE to the duty of their elected offices.

That is an impeachable offense.

Why aren't people moving to impeach their representatives if they signed the Patriot Act?

Maybe because people care more about their lawn than the national debt, care more about drinking Budweiser once they leave work as opposed to actually obtaining information to make an informed decision?

Nah, that would just make too much sense.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I don't even see why the "Patriot Act" is considered valid, and why the people who voted for it aren't impeached yet. They didn't read it, before they voted on it, and regardless of how that negligence is played off, it is DIRECT and pre-meditated GROSS NEGLIGENCE to the duty of their elected offices. That is an impeachable offense. Why aren't people moving to impeach their representatives if they signed the Patriot Act? Maybe because people care more about their lawn than the national debt, care more about drinking Budweiser once they leave work as opposed to actually obtaining information to make an informed decision? Nah, that would just make too much sense.

Now, now, you know that making sense isn't allowed around here.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Chancellor Does the clause really say, "so as to five it"? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote by: Praxius Up to 5 provisions can be found void. After that apparently you need good reason to attempt to void them.... even though all of the provisions could be potientially useless/unconstitutional.

I believe the quote of the severability clause is inaccurate. It's not "five", the word should be "give".

[Praxius]

Quote by: Zeebadee I believe the quote of the severability clause is inaccurate. It's not "five", the word should be "give".

What? Those idiots start screwing with the constitution by making this bill and then can't even spell correctly in their bill?

I mean sure.... I have plenty of spelling mistakes.... but I'm not on here to pass laws and bills that affect an entire nation, am I?

That's just about as bad as trying to limit it to 5..... this just kinda shows you more that nobody bothered to look it over, even those who wrote it, lol.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 You are actually proving his point. His point is that when you agree, politically, with the Court's decision, you say it is a Constitutional part of their power to do what they are doing, etc.

There is no evidence whatsoever of that claim.

When you disagree with the Court's decision you say it is "unconstitutional interpretation" by the Supreme Court.

Again, there is no evidence of this. What I disagree with is the Court interpreting the Constitution itself. Whether I agree or disagree with what the Court says about a particular piece of legislation Congress or some state legislature passed is really irrelevant. As long as the Courts don't try to put their own opinions about what the Constitution (and its amendments) means in the place of what the authors of the Constitution and its amendments meant (as SCOTUS did in the case where it defined public use in a way that allows city governments to steal private property and sell it to a developer in order to get more in property taxes), and as long as the Courts don't rely on the laws of other nations, American public opinion or world opinion in their deliberations, it doesn't matter what I think about a particular decision.

[tivodan1116]

You are completely missing what he is saying (and I am agreeing with)...


When you agree with what the Court is doing, such as this overturning of the Patriot Act provisions, you look at the reasoning and declare that the Court is doing its job.

When you disagree with what Court is doing, such as Kelo v. New London, you look at the reasoning and declare that the Court is unconstitutionally "interpreting" (:rolleyes:) something.


The only difference is whether you happen to agree with their decision or not. The "evidence" of you doing this are your posts on this board.

[Osborn F Enready]

That "interpretation" analysis is made based on the "context" of the forefathers writings though Tivo.

Modern Justices have mangled or removed that context nearly entirely, which is why many don't trust the court or the justices as far as they can throw them.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Praxius What? Those idiots start screwing with the constitution by making this bill and then can't even spell correctly in their bill? I mean sure.... I have plenty of spelling mistakes.... but I'm not on here to pass laws and bills that affect an entire nation, am I? That's just about as bad as trying to limit it to 5..... this just kinda shows you more that nobody bothered to look it over, even those who wrote it, lol.

No, the bill is correct, the mistake is in Mr. Jaggers quote. It's Mr. Jaggers that can't spell.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 You are completely missing what he is saying (and I am agreeing with)...

I'm not missing it, I'm saying that his accusation is incorrect.

When you agree with what the Court is doing, such as this overturning of the Patriot Act provisions, you look at the reasoning and declare that the Court is doing its job.

Yes, I look at the reasoning. And if their reasoning had been to interpret the Constitution or one of its amendments then I would have disagreed with it.

When you disagree with what Court is doing, such as Kelo v. New London, you look at the reasoning and declare that the Court is unconstitutionally "interpreting" (:rolleyes:) something.

When the Court takes something in a Constitutional amendment and says "this means this" then they're interpreting the Constitution - which they have no constitutional authority to do. What part of the distinction between interpreting the Constitution and interpreting laws passed by Congress or by other legislatures do you not understand?

The only difference is whether you happen to agree with their decision or not. The "evidence" of you doing this are your posts on this board.

No, the difference is in whether a Court is interpreting a law that was passed or is interpreting the Constitution.