Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (15893)	10/22/2002 2:21:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

That would be the last thing in the world that I would expect. Since this Administration has been assaulting the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th amendments. gjf.org Under amendment one the first and 3rd parts of the patriot act objected to in your link don't show that the law itself violates the amendment but rather that the law could be abused or twisted to allow for such an infringement. The 2nd part does make a more direct case particularly the gag order to report disclose that the documents where requested by the government but it still does not amount to a clear certain violation. The 4th deals with the freedom of information act. If the Patriot Act weakens the Freedom of Information act it may be a bad thing but it is not unconstitutional. The 5th is similar to the 1st three. It could be abused but isn't a clear violation. 4th amendment - The 1st provision that it objects to as a violation of the 4th amendment doesn't seem to be a violation. The quoted part of the law allows law enforcement to share info with the CIA. But the 4th amendment deals with "reasonable search and seizure" not what happens to the information after the search. If the law enforcement agency had a warrant in the first place the search would probably be legal. The 2nd provision that the article objects to is more relevant but its only a weakening of the standard, its not obvious that the new standard violates the 4th amendment if the old one does not. This is a case of making the murky gray area larger and because of that it may be a bad thing but it isn't a clear cut violation. The 3rd (roving wire taps) doesn't seem to be a violation or otherwise a major infringement on our rights constitutional or otherwise. The 4th (sneak and peak) isn't itself a violation but it does remove one way of preventing one type of possible violation. The 5th (changes In FISA) is a normal activity under war time conditions. The problem here being that this war seems to have no end if it is a war on all terrorism. The next two (terrorism definitions and change in procedures for immigrants) don't seem to be violations. Aside - I wish the page was not a pdf so I could cut and paste. The TIPS program is not a violation. The only thing here that does seem to be a violation is "The Attorney General's Edict for Increased Surveillance of Religious and Political Organizations". And then only if the information is to be used in a criminal prosecution. I don't see any violations in the section under the 5th amendment. Under the 6th amendment section the only thing that seems to be a violation is detaining citizens in the US without the opportunity for a timely trial. However as a practical matter you can't give enemy agents the same level of protection that people in the US normally get. But removing the protections allows for too much abuse. There should be some level of judicial oversight here even if it was military tribunals. 8th amendment - Deportation is not cruel or unusual punishment.

To: jttmab who wrote (15893)	10/22/2002 11:56:35 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

I don't see how the Administration has violated the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments. I agree that campaign finance reform violates the 1st Amendment, and that's the worst thing Bush has done since he became President. In regards to the 10th amendment, it's hard for me to understand how you can argue for suicide and pot but argue against the right to keep and bear arms. It just doesn't wash. The biggest objection I have to all these proposals to use pot is the people advocating it. I don't trust them at all. I see them in the same places I see people throwing eggs at the Vice President and interfering with the legal rights of others, and very probably they are the same people. As for suicide with assistance, I haven't made up my mind on that. I don't trust Jack Kvorkian, but on the other hand there's nothing wrong with somebody going on an extended camping trip when the lights begin to wink out.