The Constitution Wins!!!!!!

[What the Heck]

The judge spends 4 pages of her ruling on standing. See pages 21-24, the section titled "Standing". She explains much better than I do why the defendant has standing in the case. Which part of the judges explanation do you disagree with?

Yes she does. And in the first page of those 4, she states the 3 ingrediants needed to establish standing. In the 2nd page, she establishes firmly that this case HAS no standing regarding the Patriot Act, although she doesn't see it that way. It is this that will ensure her ruling is overturned in a higher court if it goes forward, at least in my opinion. This is where I think she falls short:

1. The injury in fact was not caused by the Patriot Act but by the misuse of the Patriot Act.
2. There is a casual connection between the governments conduct and the injury, so this one would apply.
3. It is not likely, it is not even speculative that the injury will be redressed by her declaring those points of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. Her action affects the case in no way whatsoever.

By her own definitions (points 1 and 3), she takes this case out of standing for the Patriot Act. That is the point where all of her logic fails. She can quote all the cases she wants, but if she can't meet the legal requirements (as presented by her) then how can she have standing? Even if her ruling was to convince a higher authority on point 3, point 1 is still staring them right in the face. Again, the way she rules on this, she could establish standing with ANY law.

By the way, thank you for arguing the facts of the case with me instead of our different political perspectives.

 

[precious pixie]

I haven't given up any freedoms.

Perhaps you like being spied on and dont appreciate the right to privacy. I for one do not appreciate big brother to be watching. I do expect to be treated justifiably as citizens in this country have for a very long time. You start stripping away so many little things and what do you have left. You let one man dictate the new way the government will be run, allow one man to break away from the very laws set in place to prevent any one person from controlling it all, allow one man to be so consumed with his own narcisim that he would rather drag down an entire country then admit a mistake an
d you have begun to create a society very different from the one our "values" would have us live in.

 

[Tyler's Dad]

Yes she does. And in the first page of those 4, she states the 3 ingrediants needed to establish standing. In the 2nd page, she establishes firmly that this case HAS no standing regarding the Patriot Act, although she doesn't see it that way. It is this that will ensure her ruling is overturned in a higher court if it goes forward, at least in my opinion. This is where I think she falls short:

1. The injury in fact was not caused by the Patriot Act but by the misuse of the Patriot Act.
2. There is a casual connection between the governments conduct and the injury, so this one would apply.
3. It is not likely, it is not even speculative that the injury will be redressed by her declaring those points of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. Her action affects the case in no way whatsoever.

By her own definitions (points 1 and 3), she takes this case out of standing for the Patriot Act. That is the point where all of her logic fails. She can quote all the cases she wants, but if she can't meet the legal requirements (as presented by her) then how can she have standing? Even if her ruling was to convince a higher authority on point 3, point 1 is still staring them right in the face. Again, the way she rules on this, she could establish standing with ANY law.

By the way, thank you for arguing the facts of the case with me instead of our different political perspectives.

The injury in fact is not so much the evidence gathered, as much as their future use of it. Before the Patriot ACt, if evidence was found to be collected outside of a proper warrant, it was thrown out. With the Patriot Act, that evidence is still kept. By them asking Ashcroft to throw it out and him refusing, that proves that the injury continues.

 

[basas]

Members of Congress know exactly what they're voting for. Frankly, if any member of Congress didn't and voted anyway (again, I'd say there's zero chance this happened), they ought to be removed from office immediately. I find that FAR worse than taking a position I vehemently disagree with.

Come on. We all know President Bush used mind-warping techniques on congress to make them vote for his Patriot Act.

 

[What the Heck]

The injury in fact is not so much the evidence gathered, as much as their future use of it. Before the Patriot ACt, if evidence was found to be collected outside of a proper warrant, it was thrown out. With the Patriot Act, that evidence is still kept. By them asking Ashcroft to throw it out and him refusing, that proves that the injury continues.

That would be a good case against that provision of the Patriot Act, but not about the one point she ruled against.

 

[hydster]

So what are you calling me?

um an assumer?

 

[JMD]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Perhaps you like being spied on and dont appreciate the right to privacy. I for one do not appreciate big brother to be watching. I do expect to be treated justifiably as citizens in this country have for a very long time. You start stripping away so many little things and what do you have left. You let one man dictate the new way the government will be run, allow one man to break away from the very laws set in place to prevent any one person from controlling it all, allow one man to be so consumed with his own narcisim that he would rather drag down an entire country then admit a mistake an
d you have begun to create a society very different from the one our "values" would have us live in.

One man isn't dictating anything. The Patriot Act was voted and passed as to be in the country's best interest for protection from terrorists.

Consumed with Narcism? Draging down an entire country? These opinions show that it isn't really about the Patriot Act but your bitter disdain for President Bush.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Come on. We all know President Bush used mind-warping techniques on congress to make them vote for his Patriot Act.

He channeled Mr. Spock Vulcan mind-control don't you know.

 

[crcormier]

I haven't given up any freedoms.

You can now be called an 'enemy combatant' at the whim of the President and incarcerated without the right of habeus corpus.

Yes, you have lost freedoms, even if you won't admit it.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

um an assumer?

You sly dog.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

Well, that's not my definition of the Patriot Act. Is it truly yours?

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

You can now be called an 'enemy combatant' at the whim of the President and incarcerated without the right of habeus corpus.

Yes, you have lost freedoms, even if you won't admit it.

Really? As an American citizen all this can be done to me at the "whim" of the President?

 

[tedhowe]

This decision reeks of politics. Rail against the Patriot Act as much as you want, but it was at least brought into law by a full Congress and President, not by one judge.

What The Heck... I respect your stance on this issue, and you're points have made me want to go read the judge's decision for myself.

But, I don't think this decision reeks of politics. I think, at worst, it may reek of ideology, which though aligned with politics is not the same thing by any stretch.

I hate the Patriot act... I think it was ill conceived and hastily implemented and is bad for the country in the long run.

But I think it is fallacious to try to lay more respect on the Patriot act just because it was passed by Congress and signed by the president. Is this "one judge" making this ruling? Yes, but that is how the system is designed... a single judge rules over any given case... if the DOJ decides to pursue it, then it will go to an appellate panel, and likely on to the SCOTUS for a final decision.

The judge making her ruling is in no way "unconstitutional" - it's how the system is supposed to work. If her ruling is without standing as you say, I have no doubt the circuit court or the supreme court will overturn it.

My question for you is, if the appellate court and the supreme court do find that the rationale for standing is valid, and uphold the ruling, would you then respect that decision and agree that the provisions she overturned were unconstitutional? Or do you feel that anytime the courts exercise that power they are granted by the constitution, they are overstepping their bounds?

 

[crcormier]

Really? As an American citizen all this can be done to me at the "whim" of the President?

Yes.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31724.pdf

 

[Fitswimmer]

One man isn't dictating anything. The Patriot Act was voted and passed as to be in the country's best interest for protection from terrorists.

Consumed with Narcism? Draging down an entire country? These opinions show that it isn't really about the Patriot Act but your bitter disdain for President Bush.

I'll agree with you that some of the vitriol for the Patriot Act goes a bit over the top-but I will ask you the same question that I ask other supporters:

Is it ok with you that an Administration you don't support has the right to listen to any phone conversation, to monitor the activities of any organization-even religious ones and to engage in warrantless searches?

If an administration truly hostile to Christianity were to take office, would it be ok with you that they monitored the activities of Churches, demanded lists of their members and monitored donations? The Patriot Act AS IT STANDS would give that administration the right to do all those things. It was structured to go after Muslim groups funding terrorists, but there's no reason why it couldn't be used against anyone else.

It might be ok with folks who like this administration, but remember-whatever rights you give away to this one, you're giving them away to any other one that comes along.

 

[crcormier]

I'll agree with you that some of the vitriol for the Patriot Act goes a bit over the top-but I will ask you the same question that I ask other supporters:

Is it ok with you that an Administration you don't support has the right to listen to any phone conversation, to monitor the activities of any organization-even religious ones and to engage in warrantless searches?

If an administration truly hostile to Christianity were to take office, would it be ok with you that they monitored the activities of Churches, demanded lists of their members and monitored donations? The Patriot Act AS IT STANDS would give that administration the right to do all those things. It was structured to go after Muslim groups funding terrorists, but there's no reason why it couldn't be used against anyone else.

It might be ok with folks who like this administration, but remember-whatever rights you give away to this one, you're giving them away to any other one that comes along.

To put it another way:

Joe, would you support President Hillary Clinton's ability to perform wiretaps on your phone and search your home without a warrant?

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

To put it another way:

Joe, would you support President Hillary Clinton's ability to perform wiretaps on your phone and search your home without a warrant?

If it was truly within the provisions of the Patriot Act, then yes.

I don't see this as a Dem vs. GOP issue.

 

[Fitswimmer]

If it was truly within the provisions of the Patriot Act, then yes.

I don't see this as a Dem vs. GOP issue.

I don't either, I see it as a Government vs the Rights of the Citizen.

I'm not happy with any administration having the ability to tap phones and search without warrants. If the government is going to tap my phone or watch my donations or activities they'd better have a darn good reason that has been OBJECTIVELY evaluated. Granted, tapping my phone would cause whoever did it to DIE of boredom, but that's not the point.