Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Privacy United States News

Parts of the Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional 414

Posted by samzenpus
from the if-you-have-nothing-to-hide dept.
BlueBlade writes "According to this CBS story, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Parts of the Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional

Comments Filter:
  • by Zombie Ryushu (803103) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @07:10AM (#20766717)
    I have a feeling that in some way we will see a repeat of the Indian Removal act with this. Congress and the President will say: The justices have made their decision, now let them enforce it.
  • by An dochasac (591582) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @07:20AM (#20766809)
    Judge Aiken's opinion said in finding violations of the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. "A shift to a nation based on extraconstitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill advised."

    I'll bet W is wondering where in the constitution it says "Extraconsitutional Authority is prohibited"

    This comment is powered by the energy generated by dynamos attached to the spinning graves of J. Edgar Hoover, Joe McCarthey, Richard Nixon...
  • by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @07:31AM (#20766905) Homepage Journal
    I think the history is that the courts have allowed temporary wartime injustices like this in the past, loss of habeas corpus during the Civil War (if you suggested peace with the South you might be arrested), internment of Germans in WWI, and the internment of Japanese in WWII.

    The problem is that the current administration wants to have it both ways, wartime/emergency/crisis powers and wants the domestic life to otherwise behave as if there is no emergency, such as repeatedly cutting taxes, despite deficit spending.
  • by 0x7E7 (993733) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @07:34AM (#20766931) Journal
    What amazes me, frankly, is that this has happened at all. From what I've seen in my short life, most people who rise to positions of authority in the U.S. Government are totally unwilling to trade their position and prestige for Constitutional principle. Although I am unfamiliar with her situation, I suspect that this particular judge will rise no higher in the ranks of the Federal Government (which may not be her wish, anyway).

    As an aside, I am really tired of hearing about all of the cool stuff around health care and civil rights coming out of Oregon. I'm from New York, and damn it, they're making us "East Coast Liberals" look like a bunch of featherweights who never get anything done.
  • Floored (Score:2, Interesting)

    by n3tcat (664243) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @07:42AM (#20767009) Homepage
    I'm stunned. I had no idea the American system was still capable of curing these problems anymore.

    I was well on the way to staying in Germany permanently due to the issues I've had with the US government over the last few years. Big victories like this one cause me to stop and reflect, however, and several more actions of this nature will make living in America seem appealing again.
  • by suv4x4 (956391) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @08:29AM (#20767523)
    I think the history is that the courts have allowed temporary wartime injustices like this in the past

    US is in war with someone almost all the time, what a convenient setup.

    So basically, the President has no power to take out civil liberties and break the constitution... buuut he has the power to start a war, declare wartime, and THEN he can do whatever the hell he feels like.

    I love it :)
  • by shadow_slicer (607649) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @08:41AM (#20767689)
    I'm sorry, but I as with you until:

    Voted to allow bigoted Alabama judge to post Ten Commandments in courtroom, as free expression is just one of those things we used to care about..
    The issue in this case was not a small wall hanging obtained with personal funds. In this case it was a large monument obtained using several thousand dollars of state funds. It was moved in during the middle of the night without notifying anybody. I'm for free expression as much as the next person, and if Roy wanted to use his personal funds to procure a sign or something for his office that's fine, but using state funds to purchase a gigantic monument and placing it in the courthouse lobby of the AL state supreme court kind of crosses the line a bit, no?
    And, although the media primarily focused on the religion aspects, that isn't what bothered most people. The problem was the reckless misappropriation of government funds and the clandestine procedures. If they have funded it some other way and gone through normal channels I'm not sure it would have been such a big issue.
  • Re:Attemted treason (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @09:27AM (#20768355)
    Why not start with violation of oath, and have them kicked out of office? I mean, the oath they take says something about "upholding the Constitution", right? Then we can move on to other things like treason. Get them out of office first.

Can't open /usr/fortunes. Lid stuck on cookie jar.

Working...