The Patriot Act Is a Threat to Our Liberty
by Rep. Tom McClintock (R–CA)Last year I voted to extend the PATRIOT Act for one year. I regret that vote and was glad to have been able to correct it, although I am pained that the House voted otherwise yesterday.
During this past year, I have become convinced that the provisions of the so-called PATRIOT Act are an affront to the Bill of Rights and a serious threat to our fundamental liberty as Americans.
The Fourth Amendment arises from abuses of the British Crown that allowed roving searches by revenue agents under the guise of what were called “writs of assistance” or “general warrants.” Instead of following specific allegations against specific individuals, the Crown’s revenue agents were given free rein to search indiscriminately.
In 1761, the famous colonial leader, James Otis, challenged these writs, arguing that “A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege.” Two hundred and fifty years later, the PATRIOT Act restores these roving searches.
In the audience that day in 1761 was a 25-year-old lawyer named John Adams. He would later recall, “Every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there, the child, ‘Independence’ was born.”
The American Founders responded with the Fourth Amendment. It provides that before the government can invade a person’s privacy, the executive branch must present sworn testimony to an independent judiciary that a crime has occurred, that there is reason to believe that an individual should be searched for evidence of the crime and specify the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The John Doe roving wiretaps provided under the bill are a clear breach of this crystal clear provision.
The entire point of having an open and independent judiciary is so that abuses of power can be quickly identified by the public and corrected. The very structure of this law prevents that from occurring.
I also object to the so-called “lone wolf” provision of the Act that allows a person who is not acting in concert with a foreign power to be treated as if they were. This malignant fiction utterly blurs the critical distinction between a private person protected under our Constitution and an enemy combatant acting as an agent of a foreign power.
My Chief of Staff, Igor Birman, was born in Moscow. His family emigrated to America when he was 14. He tells of the days leading up to their long-awaited departure. His father had technical expertise and the authorities were desperate to find some pretense to cancel the family’s exit visa.
A week before they departed for America, the family returned home to find that Soviet authorities had turned their apartment upside down looking for anything that could be used to block their emigration. This was not the result of suspected criminal activity, but rather the same kind of open-ended search the Fourth Amendment protects us against.
His younger brother was terrified and hysterical. His mother calmed the little boy by saying, “Don’t worry. We’re leaving in a few days for America. This will never happen to us there.”
Our country is threatened by foreign governments and multi-national terrorist groups which are actively working to do us harm, backed by a fifth column within our borders. But we have faced far more powerful governments and far better organized networks of spies and saboteurs in the past without having to shred our Bill of Rights.
The freedom that our Constitution protects is the source of our economic prosperity, our moral authority and our martial strength. It is also the ultimate bulwark against authoritarianism. Abraham Lincoln was right. No transatlantic military giant – let alone some fanatical terrorist group – can ever “step across the ocean and crush us at a blow.” And no foreign power can destroy our Constitution.
Only we can do that. As Lincoln said, “As a nation of free men, we are destined to live forever – or die by suicide.”







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
135 Comments
Thank you Representative McClintock, for bringing the fact to the fiction. I always had a problem with this assault of our Constitution being called the "Patriot Act". It is nothing of the sort.
http://audacitea.blogspot.com/
It's a bad idea when the Act was passed while having Obama in office. Only God knows what he has in mind and it's scary.
This is what I wrote to my congresswoman on this subject;
I am more than disappointed to hear that you voted to extend the
provisions of the Patriot act that are clearly unconstitutional.
Frankly your press release regarding this issue, in pointing out
the 4th amendment is quite close to an acknowledgement that this
law exceeds the protections of the Constitution!
You are there to represent the people, your sworn
duty is to uphold the Constitution in all cases and this
legislation does result in unreasonable searches without any
probable cause. How in the world can you justify voting to
support this law?
I am a frequent business traveler and am constantly subjected to
violations of the 4th amendment while attempting to board an
airplane. This is unacceptable and you need to reconsider your
position on this issue.
The federal government – especially in recent years, is simply
out of control and are violating Constitutional limits in many
different ways, you were elected to begin the process of putting
the government back in the box we call the Constitution. You
must, in all cases reject supporting those laws that would
violate the Constitution!
Our once great country is heading down the road to total
disaster, spending is out of control, taxes are limiting the
ability of the citizens to prosper – limiting their choices and
placing more and more control over their lives in the hands of
the federal government. This course must be changed and the only
chance we have is to return to the original intent of the
founders in creating a limited but effective federal government.
Government is like a fire, kept controlled, small and constrained
in can be a benefit; but if ignored and fed too much it will be a
destructive force and will grow and grow until it is out of
control, destroying anything in its path. This is where we are
heading right now.
In note of your support of the Patriot act I feel it is important
to remind you of why you were elected. The citizens want the
following, and I know this because I speak to them, not just in
New York either, I travel this country every week and meet people
from all corners of the USA.
* Repeal Obamacare. This is critical and in many ways this is the
single most important thing that must be accomplished. Obamacare
is clearly unconstitional, this is nothing but a statist power
grab and a mechanism to redistribute the wealth – indeed
redistribute the *health*. This law is not designed to increase
the amount or quality of healthcare, it is designed to increase
the size of the government and nothing more. It must be
repealed, and not repealed and replaced either! Real issues can
be addressed on a case by case basis after the repeal. I see you
quote Ronald Reagan on your issues page in your website. Are you
familiar with this one: "One of the traditional methods of
imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of
medicine." – Ronald Reagan. Obamacare is priority number one, if
we do not repeal this law we frankly are doomed to failure as a
society.
* Limit the scope and reach of the federal government. We need to
reduce spending and reduce the reach of the federal government
into the pockets and lives of the citizens and businesses. This
means we need to reduce the size of the federal government, not
cutbacks or reductions that number in the billions, we need to
cut entire departments! Abolish the EPA, abolish the FDA,
abolish the DOA, abolish the DHS, reign in the beauracrats, the
czars, the unaccountable apparatchiks who are in fact legislating
by regulation. This is wrong and not what the founders wanted
the federal government to do. You should support legislation
that makes any federal agency sunset on a yearly basis thereby
reduiring positive action to continue them year to year.
* Do not support increasing the debt ceiling. What is the purpose
of a cieling if it is simply ignored and moved every time it is
enroached upon? Spending is out of control, higher and higher
taxes serve only to limit the ability of the citizen to succeed,
resulting in a smaller tax base and less prosperity. Cut
spending! Cut cut cut!
* Secure the border. No state can survive if their borders are
unprotected and undefined. This is basic and critical, and truth
be told pretty darn easy. No amnesty for illegals,
'comprehensive immigration reform' is simply code words for
granting amnesty to likely leftist voters, the is obvious to all
of us. We have laws, enforce them and secure the borders, that
is all.
This is a start, it will be difficult to implement, but implement
it we must or in the end the fire that is the federal government
will consume all of us. This is what the citizens want, this is
why you were elected, uphold the Constitution above all else!
Thank you.
Glad others are questioning it – Ron Paul was right again.
Under NoBama and his crew of socialist miscreants the Patriot Act has become very dangerous to our way of life and freedom. With the naked body scans at the airports along with sexual molestation it has become an unconstitutional nightmare. Heck you can't even go to the Super Bowl without Big Sis wanting to feel your junk.
The P. A. has to go to ensure our Republic remains free.
So you voted for it,
Before voting against it?
So your political morality is for sale?
So you are nothing but a political whore,
Who has no convictions!
Oh wait, let me guess,
Another lawyer who doesn't know the Constitution?
No sir, you are worse than that.
You knew the Constitution and ignored it, (and your oath!!)
Your words mean nothing to me.
Whore!!
Sad to say this but,
I will bet my life savings that this letter was not read past the first three lines.
(If at all)
By your representative.
Their agenda and morals are wherever the money is.
Thank you for opposing the Patriot Act. One reason I despise the GOP is because so few of them are like you.
Great letter and you don't know me but I'm your friend. God Bless You.
obummer was against it, right up until he decided it was a pretty handy tool for controlling his domestic enemies.
I was apprehensive about it when Bush brought it to life- not that I thought that administration would use it for anything but our security (which at that time truely needed the boost)- I believed my thought was tounge in cheek at the time- what if a tyranical administration got voted in and abused the power? I couldn't have fathomed America voting for an Obama type of charactor. I'm sick to say this, but I trust my government right now less than I'm concerned for the safty of the country. Tom McClintock, do what you can to tear down that bill!
With a benevolent government the Patriot Act is OK. Under tyranny, we all are in danger.
We all are in danger.
Perhaps, but I have met my representative and frankly would bet you money, not my life savings, but I would bet that it does get read in full.
You are right to be cynical, but the fact of the matter is we need to do all we can to make our voices heard, and this is one mechanism.
And you, that was a nice thing to say.
The Patriot Act is an affront to our Bill of Rights, and it is a serious threat to our fundamental liberties as Americans.
It always raises the question "Just how would a Patriot Act?"
If George Washington were alive today, he would be aghast at what has happened in his Republic.
Thanks for voting for Liberty over Tyranny. It is better to see the light late than never see it at all.
Perhaps Pitt understood the same lessons Otis pointed out?
"'Necessity' is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt, 1783
Yes, ME!!!
Lovers of liberty and the Constitution are my friends.
"The Fourth Amendment arises from abuses of the British Crown that allowed roving searches by revenue agents under the guise of what were called “writs of assistance” or “general warrants.” Instead of following specific allegations against specific individuals, the Crown’s revenue agents were given free rein to search indiscriminately."
… sounds like the TSA as well… Let's get that pedo/grope organization under control too!!!
Yes sir you are correct in voicing your opinion.
Just venting it to paper does wonders for ones psyche.
(Remembering a letter Lincoln wrote to Mead after Gettysburg expressing his dissapointment in the Army of the Potomac letting Lee "escape" back in to Virginia. That letter was never sent.)
I live in Upstsate New York.
Cynical is only the start of my character defects…..
Rep. Tom McClintock, sorry to hear you voted for the Patriot Violation Act. I am however very glad to hear you realized the error in your ways and voted AGAINST it this time. I commend your honesty and your position.
There were 3,000 Americans killed on September 11, 2001,…..
thanks to your "sacrifice",…… maybe there will not be 3,001.
Tracking devices on vehicles without a warrant.
Searches of residence and computer hardrives without a warrant.
Confiscation of computers!!!
Detained for 'interviews' for hours with no probable cause.
I am sure they have my cell phone records.
(Every call you have ever made with a cell phone can be retrieved.)
I have made my disdain for the police VERY clear. (That includes the HSA and the FBI)
And I stand by my every drop of my spit that lands on their face!!!
Nobody would join him,……..
today we would not be willing to deal with the hardship,…..
that his first army did.
I for one am willing sacrifice my "liberty" in order so that,…
my grandchildren have the opportunity to continue to enjoy the Bill of Rights.
That is what I mean by the phrase 'mini van lifestyle'
You are very true, very few would deal with the hardship.
I am more of an Ethan Allen fan the a G. Washington fan.
The Green Mountain Boys I equate with the modern day "outlaw biker".
Damn skippy, we're all in danger…..
Our founding fathers warned us that there is no such thing as a benevolent government….
Save some of that "spit",………
for the others who also want to "inconvenience" your life.
I'll be right there beside you…
Nothing, besides endless politicking, is going to happen regarding any of these issues, and I do mean everything from the PATRIOT Act to the out of control spending, until one specific thing happens. Folks have to come to grips with the fact that "Rights" and "Privileges" are synonyms in the Constitutional Context. Look to the quote right here in this piece –
“A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege.”
Whether one looks to the "Privileges and Immunities" within the original body or to the attempt to strengthen it with the 14th Amendment, particularly Privileges or Immunities", there are only two conclusions one can come to.
1) Either Privileges and or Immunities is referring to "rights" in the positive and negative sense
-or-
2) There is no such thing as "rights" but instead only government allowances exist. This would mean that after the 13th Amendment abolished slavery of black people, the 14th enslaved us all equally to the master called government.
The Supreme Court has gutted the Constitutional meaning of the word "Privilege" and effectively stripped us of inalienable Rights, leaving only an illusion of them, in doing so.
Only by forcing government, the judiciary especially, to once again accept the Constitutional meaning of the word "Privilege" can We The People put government back within its Constitutional boundaries.
Read that Constitution, most especially that 14th Amendment. Think it through and see it for yourself. If rights and privileges are two different things, then we have no rights at all. Indeed, we are simply government owned slaves allowed and disallowed whatever it chooses at any particular time.
You have the advantage of me there sniper,……
"The Green Mountain Boys",…..?????
That is a great reason to cut taxes and spending huh mallsniper? Starve the beast. So are you going to stand against "taxing the rich" now? Yeah right.
As I keep saying wanting to ride an airplane is not probable cause!!
And that's the point, it should have never been allowed in the first place.
Thank you Tom, I knew that my vote for you wasn't wasted.
Keep up the good work.
Rep. McClintock, you put forth many good reasons for voting against the patriot act. My question to you is were you not aware of all of them when you voted for it or is this just recently gained knowledge?
Where are all the usual large government "conservatives" telling us how wonderful the patriot act is because it keeps us safe? If someone with an "R" after their name supports it surely it must be good for us! Only the "D"s are evil!
George Washington managed to bring down the British in order to restore inalienable rights. Our government is trampling all over those rights of Americans in hopes of catching terrorists…who will get the non-trampled form of those rights if caught.
The Patriot Act is another attempt to make the Constitution a "living" document.
Give me the dead Consitution!
Amen Harry!
They want it to be a 'living' document, so that they can euthanize it…..
So you’ve had a battle field conversion Mr. McClintock? …cool. Using that photo from “The Lives of Others,” works perfectly, that’s where were headed as a country if we don’t plant the flag and say “NO!” …on many, many things.
They liberated the largest fort in the northeast Ft. Ticonderoga.
The guns that were liberated were trained on the British in Boston By artillery officer Knox.
That forced the British to abandon Boston and set up new quarters in New York.
These were mountain men that lived in the disputed territory of what is now Vermont.
The modern day national guard in Vermont is named the Green Mountain Boys in their honour.
Mornin sweets!
The potential for abuse is inherent in ALL OUR LAWS. A cop can abuse his powers. An attorney can abuse his power. A judge can abuse his power.
CONGRESS CAN ABUSE THEIR POWERS
COURTS CAN ABUSE THEIR POWERS
A PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE HIS POWERS.
No law is perfect or without the potential for abuse. But look at the body of evidence.
Has the PA facilitated the apprehension, trial, and conviction of terrorists on US soil?
HELYEH!
Has the PA allowed law enforcement to move swiftly to PREVENT TERROR ATTACKS ON US SOIL
HELYEH!
Would we have been so successful WITHOUT the PA?
HELNO!
Can anyone cite a specific case in which the PA was abused and an innocent citizen suffered physical or monetary damages as a result?
……….ANYONE?
I'm willing to give kudos to ANY legislator (Repub or Dem) that "sees the light".
Another politician using the Patriot Act to score political points.
I hate to oppose my conservative and libertarian friends, but I just don't see how the Patriot Act (creepy name, I'll give you that) violates the 4th Amendment.
Every probable cause law is still applicable. All the Patriot Act does is make illegal for agencies NOT to share information. Without the Patriot Act, the Brooklyn Bridge would be destroyed.
And under the Act, or FISA, no one can listen to your conversations. The only thing that's monitored is TRAFFIC patterns of calls originating in foreign countries.
In case no one has noticed, Obama has violated a heck of a lot more than anything he could twist under the Patriot Act. He signed a tyrannical healthcare bill, is confiscating BILLIONS of dollars to redistribute it to unions, is funneling billions more to George Soros oil companies.
Keep your eye on the ball — and help repeal Obamacare before 16,000 IRS agents are deployed on the states … THAT's tyranny!
Anyone in office… "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
It removes our individual liberties. That is not okay no matter who holds the reins.
Exactly Red. I don't care who is in Office, nobody can be trusted with such power, I would not even trust myself with it. History shows that even those with the best intentions can tear rights apart; forgive me, it is especially those with "positive" intentions who destroy rights.
Veto the Patriot Act.
A disaster for civil liberty. It is not civil and it takes away liberty.
At least he's finally doing the right thing.
It's actually an acronym:
USA PATRIOT ACT = Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
Maybe that's because the pigs claim reporting details is a violation of the law? But try these on for size: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/06/judge_or...
Filthy. Maggot. Pigs.
wtf? islam is an existential threat. i have the sinking feeling that too many conservatives would rather die paying homage to the constitution, than man-up and fight the war.
first we win the war, then we restore our freedoms.
Has anyone bothered to look at how many "Tea Party backed candidates" voted for the extension? Allen West comes to mind….
I do not want to trade Liberty for Safety. If it comes down to it, let me defend myself and family with our backs against the wall of our own home. Whether it springs from the right or the left of our political world, any act or law that allows government sanctioned agents to randomly come into my home, open my mail, intercept my phone calls, etc. is repugnant to any free American and will only be met with hostility. Defend the 2nd Amendment, it might become more practical than most people think.
The "patriot" act (which is just the OPPOSITE) was one of the WORST bills ever enacted by the congress. It is an affront to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (neither of which have ever been read by any lunatic-left d-crat socialist) and it is the worst piece of legislation ever supported by Republicans. It must suffer the same fate as obozocare: repeal it, tear it up into a million pieces, burn the pieces, bury the ashes, then cover the burial site with 1000 tons of concrete.
Why didn't Democrats eliminate it -as they campaigned they would- when they had total control of the legislature and the White house?
McClintock thankfully joins a list of eyes-wide-open Americans, least of which being conservatives more than liberals who finally see the assault on individual liberty, the Draconian Big Brother control factor surrounding the "Patriot Act", such a lovely euphemism for what the "Patriot Act" truly is……………..
Dare to not forget, or, if need be, for the first time remind yourselves who brought this against the American citizen, the United States in October of 2001. Dare to admit those responsible. It has always been a sham, a lie, all part of the false flag to control a populous.
Dare to remind yourselves as to who today supports this aforementioned Draconian Big Brother control against your rightful autonomy, your individual liberties.
He's right, the Patriot Act is an infringement on my freedom. Instead they should specifically target Muslims.
Oh to be rightwing and hypocrite.
The ‘Patriot Act’ was good to go when the NEOCONS were using it BUT now a Black Liberal has the power and all of the sudden it is not such a good thing anymore.
The GOP’s most loyal voting base the racist rightwing terrorists do not like the idea that the government can keep on eye on their anti-American terrorist actions so easily now.
Back in the Bush era the only member of the GOP to question the ‘Patriot Act’ was antiwar GOP outcast Ron Paul of which Fox News would not allow to be a part of there GOP Presidential Debates.
Are you surprised that a war criminal supports the NEOCON ‘Patriot Act’?
This would be the epitaph for the Tea Party.
“We died believing in an outdated document over being intelligent to live in the present”
Yep.
Because positive intentions are propaganda. Intentions should be Constitutional, not positive. Our language and our feelings reflect Statism, not personal responsibility. It "feels" good, nice, Christian, benevolent, etc, so it must be "positive". The State has no business legislating "positive" only "Constitutional".
I dont consider what West did in combat wrong at all. So, I wouldnt call him a war criminal. The war itself is unjust, as I'm sure we all agree ( I hope ).
Think about the physiological tricks the NEOCONS used to get support for this.
We had 9-11 and everyone was feeling united and all PATRIOTIC and wanted to get those bastards at ALL COSTS. Nothing matter, not the law domestic or international, nor did the constitution matter. It was time for revenge and everyone was ready (Will not the young Republicans, they wanted the poor to go fight for them).
The NEOCONS said it is your duty to be SCARED and PATRIOTIC and just trust us.
What did we get? The Shredding of our rights and falsely taken to war with a country that had NOTHING to do with the ACTUAL attacks.
Do not get me wrong I know in this day and age of technology only a complete moron would believe we could follow the rules of the constitution and be safe.
So instead of violating the constitution and using a crisis to that. Why did the NEOCONS not just come out and tell the truth and say the constitution must be updated to meet modern day standards? Could it be they are afraid to have the ENTIRE constitution updated to meet present day standards? I would say that is a huge YES.
The Act was passed when Bush was in office. It was extended when Obama is in office.
I disagree. They are a threat, especially organized extremists and their state sponsors, but we would do well to husband our resources for a concentrated use of force, than go galloping around the world rebuilding islamic states into a democracies that will crumble as soon as we leave. Rather, we should secure our borders and develop technologies to detect terrorists and bomb them and their supporters to dust. All of that can be done at a fraction the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, both in priceless American lives and money we don't have to spend. And it can all be done without intruding on the liberty that justifies self-defense in the first place.
I will agree with you on one aspect: We need to harness our sense of self-preservation.
We obviously shouldn't sacrifice our rights to do it, but we also have to be truthful. This editorial doesn't say at all how the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.
Allen West for President:
http://allenwest2012.ning.com/
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/02/12/allen-west-roc...
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/01/24/video-congress...
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3333...
The Patriot Act is not a problem because its power can abused. It is a problem because it is the power to abuse. There is no proper use for unlimited surveillance.
The Patriot Act isn't just a technical violation of the 4th Amendment like a warrant with the wrong address on it. It is the essence of abuse. It even puts criminal penalties on anyone who tells another about an illegal search. If this act were just it wouldn't require censorship to keep people in the dark about what the Act really does.
The moron on this site who demanded that others point out actual violations was inciting the commission of a crime under the Patriot Act. If you know of an unconstitutional search and reveal it you are subject to years in jail.
The Patriot Act is a violation of not just the 4th Amendment but the 5th and 1st as well.
When the act was first being proposed I argued that the act was an abomination and asked "Would you be as enthusiastic for its passage if Hillary Clinton were president? Are you willing to give such power to an American leftist?" Today, the worst tyrant that the Oval Office has had since Woodrow Wilson now has that power! Do you really feel safer? Do you like the idea that an attorney general like Eric Holder can access your medical records as well as your financial records and even your personal computer?
Exactly. While I'm glad he's against it now, why the change of heart? It was a bad law in the beginning. It is still a bad law. Not much has changed except the political climate. Oh wait, maybe that's the reason…
An honest politician would have to burn a copy of the Constitution so as to make it clear that we no longer have one.
It is a weird tribute to the Founders that those who violate the constitution dare not openly abolish it. They want the aura and mantle of the Founders while destroying their greatest work, the US Constitution.
Obama himself is the biggest threat to the Constitution.
Why don't the Republicans focus on items like Obama's tyrannical executive order 12425 that gives Interpol the power to search American citizens without Constitutional barriers?
http://townhall.com/columnists/FloydandMaryBethBr...
If the Patriot Act were unconstitutional, then why does the Obama administration and the FBI want warrantees searches of email? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.htm...
No, they should work with the powers already granted by the Constitution. Terrorists are criminals, and there were already ways to investigate a criminal. We've been doing it for years – just ask the mob. It was never a problem of not having the authority to do things. It is the lack of application of the laws we already had. If everyone in government had been doing their jobs, things would have been different. (I'm thinking of those expired visas here, among other things.) No amount of legislation or authority is going to be able to replace good police work and common sense.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/freedom-watch/s...
This site has the dismal results. Most of the "Tea Party" voted for the extension. Michelle Bachman was among them. X-Files' Fox Mulder was right – Trust No One.
Kristi Noem revealed herself as a big government Republican with her vote. Allen West? Don't be ridiculous, of course he voted to extend the act. In the Senate Marco Rubio voted for it. The basic rule is "If the Republicans are pushing someone as a 'rising star' that person can't be trusted".
Who voted against it? Ron Paul, Dana Rohrabacher, Raul Labrador and few other Tea Partiers.
Do people still wonder why Ron Paul won the straw vote at CPAC?
"Why don't the Republicans focus on items like Obama's tyrannical executive order 12425 that gives Interpol the power to search American citizens without Constitutional barriers? "
Why? Because they intend to use it when they get back in power!
You do know he voted YES to extend the ‘Patriot act’?
Remember the Founders recommended scrapping the entire document every 20 years to keep it updated with the times.
Seriously? So… first you wrongfully supported having the constitution trampled on because you thought the Bush administration was "benevolent" (sheep), now you're against it because you think the Obama administration is "tyranical" (baaaaaa)?
I don't know how you people define benevolence or tyranny, and I really don't know how you come to the conclusions you do when you can't see 5 feet in front of you.
You people supported giving the Bush administration this power, did you think the next guy was going to give it up? Do you think the president after Obama will give it up? You people are mislead.
2nd!
good points. if we marshaled our resources better and smarter, we might be able to win the war, while protecting all our freedoms.
that said, what rights exactly are being violated? i hear whispers of this or that, but when it comes down to it, there's no clear violation of the constitution that i'm aware of. unless you consider your presence and action in a shopping mall to somehow be private, which they're not. or your library reading habits…c'mon. if you don't support roaming wiretaps, then you better talk to your local police. much of what the 'p-act' did was give the feds the same tools local authorities have.
if people are so concerned about their sacrosanct rights, how do they feel about living under sharia? and if people think that by curtailing our freedoms, we've already lost, bull!!!
again, first we win the war, then we address our rights/freedoms; we are that strong.
Because no one gives up power willingly. Plus the "party of NO" wouldn't have stood for it.
thought I was going out on a limb on this one there TS,…….
but I guess being pragmatic (your input) sure trumps a lot of,…….
noble thoughts,..especially if it prevents,….
being blowed up
Extremely flawed? That's ridiculous. It understood division of powers, limited government and individual rights better than any document before or since.
The patriot act prevents people from talking about whether they were questioned or searched using the "powers" spelled out in the piece of abominable legislation. Nothing is heard because it's illegal to say anything. Sounds like a police state to me
Thing is with the patriot act the feds don't have to get a warrant, they don't have to notify you, which a search warrant requires. They can break into your house, conduct a search, and leave while you at work, and then use what they find as evidence. If any level of government wants to conduct a search and seizure of you or your property they have to present a warrant and tell you what you are charged with. The patriot act eliminates those constitutional protections
You really think the original constitution was about individual rights?
You do know everyone except RICH WHITE PROPERTY OWNERS were second class citizens or even worse under the original document?
No thanks
They had to vote for it or they would be labeled naïve idiots that support terrorists like Rudy AKA Rudy 9-11 and Fox News did to Ron Paul back in 2008.
Anyone voting against the ‘Patriot Act’ will be labeled as being weak on national security.
If you vote against the ‘Patriot Act’ and a successful attack is pulled off that the ‘Patriot Act’ would have stopped your political career is OVER WITH.
Tell you the Truth it is amazing that Ron Paul keeps getting elected considering even the GOP hate him. Only the most radical of the rightwing fringe support Paul’s views and opinions.
Ok how about the government ban all gun sales and transfers, and confiscate all existing firearms from the public. That way no muslim can get their hands on a fire arm and go on a shooting spree in the USA. Time to man up and fight the war, once the muslims are defeated we can get our gun rights back. Same with the first amendment, it's best we just have official government media, preferably from the military to protect us from muslim propaganda. It would be best if the government had full control of the internet too, just until we "win the war" though. Then I want all my liberties back.
Thats how absurd the "sacrifice liberty to fight the war" mindset is.
The kind of people that attend CPAC in large numbers are mostly Birchers. In other words Civil War Reenactors and Rightwing Bible Thumpers.
Ron Paul could NEVER get a Moderate or Independent Voter to vote for him.
Hey lyr,
Agreed but when, really, in this country were we not living in some degree of a police state. Houses owned for decades get dozed because of a highway bypass…imminent domain. rapists before dna got set free or worse, miss identified by someone who didn't like the color of their skin.
When you live in a lawful society you get LAW. Justice never even meets the 4th round elimination interview. That is one reason why religion is both comforting and abetting. Justice by a supreme loving God will sort it all out in the afterlife. All will be set right.
Whatever gets ya through the day. But when you go before a court even decent adherence to law is a crap shoot, let alone justice.
Not that thatt knowledge helps but hey…..calls'em like i sees'em.
Gentle Readers,
Dear Mr. McClintock,
Trouble is this: For every instance where PATRIOT ACT provisions are used for National Security, there are literally dozens or hundreds of instances where these very same tactics: roving wiretaps, etc., are used in Drug Trafficking
Cases, and have been since the early 1970s.
Why do you not object to the use of roving wiretaps on kids with a truck load of pot, but do object to their used by Federal Agents attempting to prevent terrorists from committing mass-murder? It would seem stopping the terrorists would be an better use, and the Constitution does provide authority for the national defense effort.
Sincerely,
John Lepant Brighton CO
Hey dip-sh*t, did I say I supported It? I stated in a benevolent world, there are no problems…. we don't live in a benevolent world. More and more our world, our country is turning tyrannical all led by your fuhrer in the White House. The point of my post is to state we are in deep do-do. go some place else troll. You are a waste of our time.
And who are "you people"? Are you a racist, a bigot, or what?
"……Sounds like a police state to me……."
If only we could discuss this topic outside of drama class.
of course, that doesn't sound good. however, my understanding is that warrants are still needed, just not necessarily before the search, and naturally its not in our interests to notify people when they're being investigated. could this lead to abuse….of course. are we as a nation strong enough to sacrafice some freedoms in order to win this war…i think so. case in point, the p-act is up for reauthorization every couple years. i wish all laws were.
wtf? not very conservative of you. i'd argue for arming all citizens. better civilian vigilance would keep the terrorists from acting. you've heard 'more guns, less crime'? it should be mandatory high school reading.
however, your way off scale. curtailing some rights in no way advocates obliterating all rights. the idea is to be effective, and what you describe is anything but.
Baaaaaaaa Sheep.
You said you thought it was "OK" in a time that you were mislead into thinking the Government was "benevolent". You are a fool to think that government was benevolent under Bush. You are fool for believing that anything granting that kind of power to any government is a good thing at ANY time. You are a fool if you believe the USA is under tyrannical rule. You are fool who can't see beyond your nose.
You are correct in calling out my "trolling" however. If you can figure that out with that rocket ship of a brain your head manages to keep together, than I suppose it may be safe assume you can take what few brain cells there are left in that little head and figure out who YOU people are.
I appreciate you changing your mind on the "Patriot" Act. But something I honestly want to know: If the Republicans completely take over after next year's election, will you still vote this way?
Plus the "party of NO" wouldn't have stood for it.
"The Party of NO" was out of power for two years. The Dimwits could have passed any law they wanted to.
Stomp….
Just wanted to give you a little update on me. Yesterday I was laid off from my job. Lack of work due to the de-facto moratorium…….
You must be logged in to post a comment.