Federal judge rules 2 provisions of Patriot Act unconstitutional

[Jern_Sandyer]

Source Here

PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment." Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004. The federal government apologized and settled part of the lawsuit for $2 million after admitting a fingerprint was misread. But as part of the settlement, Mayfield retained the right to challenge parts of the Patriot Act.

Is this the start to the end of the Patriot Act?

[Jack]

We can hope. Two down, how many more to go?

(You know, I've read some who say the courts can't interpret the Constitution, so I guess we'll have to go read the Federalist Papers and see what the founding fathers had to say about the Patriot Act. )

[Zeebadee]

No doubt this decision will be stayed pending appeal from the bush cabal. Impeachment should (but won't) closely follow.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Zeebadee No doubt this decision will be stayed pending appeal from the bush cabal.

Indeed. This does have some of the makings of a land mark Supreme Court case though.

[tinybear]

What? Two provisions of the Patriot Act unconstitutional? Only two?

[Mr. Jaggers]

Hobbes maintained that men readily trade their liberty, the right to do as they wish, for security. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1660). Indeed, one need only look to the Patriot Act of 2001 to see that this is true.

[Praxius]

Actually a few months ago I believe I posted another article about other things in the Patriot Act which were found unconstitutional and required removal..... these two are an addition to the already proven examples..... let me see if I can find the original thread:

From 2004

CNN.com - Federal judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional - Jan. 26, 2004

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated international terrorist organizations.

And also in 2004:

Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional (washingtonpost.com)

A federal judge in New York ruled yesterday that a key component of the USA Patriot Act is unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to demand information from Internet service providers without judicial oversight or public review. The ruling is one of several judicial blows to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies in recent months.

And now this article in the thread.......

A friggin impeachment should have happened years ago. He's the so-called leader of your country and is supposed to protect the constitution, not loophole and destroy it.

There is just so much Bush could be impeached for and most likely be found guilty for.... might as well just throw him away now and be done with it. He's a friggin waste of oxygen, space, time, life(lives) and food.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Mr. Jaggers Hobbes maintained that men readily trade their liberty, the right to do as they wish, for security. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1660). Indeed, one need only look to the Patriot Act of 2001 to see that this is true.

Except that this is a fallacy, as no additional security is gained. A person who wants to do something badly enough (such as commit terrorist attacks) will find a way to do it, given enough time and effort.

- Rob

[grandpa]

Quote by: Autolykos Except that this is a fallacy, as no additional security is gained. A person who wants to do something badly enough (such as commit terrorist attacks) will find a way to do it, given enough time and effort.

Liberty is security, as far as I'm concerned. Looking back at any society that became draconian, some people find they did all that work for nothing.

Indeed, did our government, with all its billion dollar efforts, prevent 9/11?
Regardless of who was to blame, no.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

All of this to be sent to further "ruling" by partisan judges in the Supreme Court, appointed by partisan presidents?

I would like to say this is a positive step, but I don't see it.

[butterbut]

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

[butterbut]

Quote by: Praxius Actually a few months ago I believe I posted another article about other things in the Patriot Act which were found unconstitutional and required removal..... these two are an addition to the already proven examples..... A friggin impeachment should have happened years ago. He's the so-called leader of your country and is supposed to protect the constitution, not loophole and destroy it. There is just so much Bush could be impeached for and most likely be found guilty for.... might as well just throw him away now and be done with it. He's a friggin waste of oxygen, space, time, life(lives) and food.

These are not "proven" examples. That is an absolutely ignorant statement. Different people interpert the Constitution diffferently. Just becuase 1 judge makes a ruling another judge won't overturn it. Ever heard of Plessy vs. Ferguson?

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.

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

Its amusing how ya'll absoulutely hate the guy.

[Chancellor]

If Oregon is part of the ninth circuit, the ruling is pretty much meaningless since the ninth circuit is the most overturned circuit in the nation.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Isherwood We can hope. Two down, how many more to go? (You know, I've read some who say the courts can't interpret the Constitution, so I guess we'll have to go read the Federalist Papers and see what the founding fathers had to say about the Patriot Act. )

I think the founding fathers would have risen up in revolt against the Patriot Act (and I'm one of those who insist there's nothing in Article III giving the Courts the authority to interpret the Constitution - which has nothing whatsoever to do with determining whether legislation passed by Congress is constitutional; the Constitution is the absolute standard against which all laws are to be measured).

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius Actually a few months ago I believe I posted another article about other things in the Patriot Act which were found unconstitutional and required removal..... these two are an addition to the already proven examples..... let me see if I can find the original thread: From 2004 CNN.com - Federal judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional - Jan. 26, 2004 And also in 2004: Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional (washingtonpost.com) And now this article in the thread....... A friggin impeachment should have happened years ago. He's the so-called leader of your country and is supposed to protect the constitution, not loophole and destroy it. There is just so much Bush could be impeached for and most likely be found guilty for.... might as well just throw him away now and be done with it. He's a friggin waste of oxygen, space, time, life(lives) and food.

Then you must also impeach every Congress critter that voted for the Patriot Act.

[Praxius]

Sure ok..... get some other heads rolling while we're at it.... set some examples.

But isn't only a president that can be impeached?

Like a commander of his troops, he should be held accountable for his or his party's actions.

[Osborn F Enready]

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

That is the biggest lie I have seen yet, but thanks for blatantly admitting the depth to which you have allowed the government to misinform you.

Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither, and in the long run, will lose both.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chancellor said: Then you must also impeach every Congress critter that voted for the Patriot Act.

I fully agree, and I will also state for the RECORD, they have admitted none of them read it before signing.

That is TREASON, and a blatant abuse of their responsibility to protect Americans RIGHTS above all else, the ONLY reason they are empowered to act in our name.

Impeach them all my fellow Americans, why wait for the next election cycle to change our nation back to a Constitutional system?

Its never too early to do the right thing.

[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.

By the bye, the original of the above (Post #17) quote -“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.” - was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759), which was attributed to Benjamin Franklin in the edition of 1812; however in a letter to David Hume of September 27, 1760 regarding the publication of the first edition, Franklin denied that he wrote it. One might credit it a good motto even without the attribution to Franklin; but betting odds are that Hobbes was right. (See Post #6, supra.)

[Osborn F Enready]

I didn't quote Franklin because I modified the quote myself, but I appreciate your honesty and attention to detail for pointing that out.