Patriot Act,,are theyconstitutional? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Patriot Act,,are theyconstitutional?


Bravo 1
07-26-2011, 04:07
In regards to both laws, are they Constitutional?

What are your feelings on the matter?

Dukeboy01
07-26-2011, 06:26
Yes.

:wavey:

Oh, and IBTL.

Sam Spade
07-26-2011, 06:29
Vast majority of the act is old law. PA just collected it in one place.

RussP
07-26-2011, 07:42
In regards to both laws, are they Constitutional?

What are your feelings on the matter?First, you say both laws, what's the second one.

Second, Cop Talk is not the place to ask members about the constitutionality of a law. It smells like a trap. Once a member responds, "It is not Constitutional," someone is going to start the "Then why the **** do you enforce it?" tirade. That discussion should be in Civil Liberties.

Last, What do you mean by, "What are your feelings on the matter?". Are you asking if it is effective, is it beneficial to LE's efforts to thwart terrorism, is it working? Set some parameters for the discussion.

And, yes, I am a pain in the ass. It is a well known and well documented fact. Just ask any one of these cops in here. I've slapped most of them up side the head AT LEAST once.

TheGreatGonzo
07-26-2011, 09:39
I suspect a Mime is somehow involved this thread.

jenrick
07-26-2011, 11:41
"He's a buffalo, look at his eyebrow!"

It's from a Snapple radio commercial reference a Mime if you haven't heard it. Why did we both capitalize "mime"?

-Jenrick

Hack
07-26-2011, 11:48
In regards to both laws, are they Constitutional?

What are your feelings on the matter?

Besides the possibility of the question being somewhat inappropriate for Cop Talk, what do feelings have to do with the matter?

Mayhem like Me
07-26-2011, 14:01
It is constitutional until it's ruled not to be...
If it's passed by congress and signed by the president it's law of the land kinda like Obamacare...
Then a challenge to the USSC on legal grounds can be made and a ruling could overturn the law as unconstitutional, we as citizens don't have the power or responsibility to judge that.
We do have the Right to speak out against it however, but existing laws can still be enforced...

Mayhem like Me
07-26-2011, 14:08
In regards to both laws, are they Constitutional?

What are your feelings on the matter?

I would like to add, The way you have asked the question speaks volumes as to why you react the way you do.

I would have asked "What are your thoughts on the matter?"

You have a mindset based on emotion and feelings.

Not good or bad it is just the way you base your decisions on feelings or emotion.

You will find most, not all, Police Officers base decisions on thoughts or facts it's in their personality profile.

Thinking vs Feeling.

Bravo 1
07-26-2011, 18:52
Okay, some of you guys take yourselves WAY too seriously.

One thinks it is a trap, one thinks he can psychoanalyze me by my choice of the word feelings.

I feel like I am meeting a girlfriend's dad for the first time here.


There is a a Patriot act 1 AND 2. They are not exactly the same thing.

And the reason I asked police on here, is because THEY are in charge of enforcing parts of it. I would imagine they would consider the constitutionality of the things they do would they not?

Or am I assuming too much here? :dunno:

Bravo 1
07-26-2011, 18:58
I would like to add, The way you have asked the question speaks volumes as to why you react the way you do.

I would have asked "What are your thoughts on the matter?"

You have a mindset based on emotion and feelings.

Not good or bad it is just the way you base your decisions on feelings or emotion.

You will find most, not all, Police Officers base decisions on thoughts or facts it's in their personality profile.

Thinking vs Feeling.




Way too much thought sir. The choice of the word feelings can be easily replaced with opinion in this context. I tend to form opinions based on facts and experience, so opinions can be valuable too.

Actually I can care less about feelings, I am much more interested facts and legality in matters.

I personally do not agree with these laws or the latest court ruling in Indiana for example.

It would seem the constitutions, both federal and state, in these cases are no more than toilet paper anymore.

Bravo 1
07-26-2011, 19:01
First, you say both laws, what's the second one.

Second, Cop Talk is not the place to ask members about the constitutionality of a law. It smells like a trap. Once a member responds, "It is not Constitutional," someone is going to start the "Then why the **** do you enforce it?" tirade. That discussion should be in Civil Liberties.

Last, What do you mean by, "What are your feelings on the matter?". Are you asking if it is effective, is it beneficial to LE's efforts to thwart terrorism, is it working? Set some parameters for the discussion.

And, yes, I am a pain in the ass. It is a well known and well documented fact. Just ask any one of these cops in here. I've slapped most of them up side the head AT LEAST once.


I hear what you are saying, and I do not aim to get into a huge mud fest here. I am just looking for a genuine, honest consensus to compare you guys, who offer a pretty geographically diverse group-think of sorts.

PITA,,, maybe,,:whistling: some,, but not like some other sites . It's all good.:cool:

Mayhem like Me
07-26-2011, 19:06
Way too much thought sir. The choice of the word feelings can be easily replaced with opinion in this context. I tend to form opinions based on facts and experience, so opinions can be valuable too.

Actually I can care less about feelings, I am much more interested facts and legality in matters.

I personally do not agree with these laws or the latest court ruling in Indiana for example.

It would seem the constitutions, both federal and state, in these cases are no more than toilet paper anymore.

your words betray you, you chose the words, and feelings is the choice you made.
Not too much thought at all on my part, but I did think about my response and not feel it.

Mayhem like Me
07-26-2011, 19:09
Way too much thought sir. The choice of the word feelings can be easily replaced with opinion in this context. I tend to form opinions based on facts and experience, so opinions can be valuable too.

Actually I can care less about feelings, I am much more interested facts and legality in matters.

I personally do not agree with these laws or the latest court ruling in Indiana for example.

It would seem the constitutions, both federal and state, in these cases are no more than toilet paper anymore.

what do you not agree with?
on what basis?

Mayhem like Me
07-26-2011, 19:17
dbbl tap....

collim1
07-26-2011, 19:21
GT really needs a "lawyer" forum so people will quit posting this crap in CT.

I am a police officer, not a lawyer or judge. It is my job to make arrests on probable cause, not interpret laws or judge a defendant's guilt.

RussP
07-26-2011, 21:02
Second, Cop Talk is not the place to ask members about the constitutionality of a law. It smells like a trap. Once a member responds, "It is not Constitutional," someone is going to start the "Then why the **** do you enforce it?" tirade. That discussion should be in Civil Liberties.
And the reason I asked police on here, is because THEY are in charge of enforcing parts of it. I would imagine they would consider the constitutionality of the things they do would they not?See, there you go again, baiting the trap.

You need to understand that most working cops are not going to make statements on open internet forums that could come back to bite them in the ass. Read the posts of the veterans here, those who know the drill, the politics of the business and you'll see that.

I'll leave it at that for now.

RussP
07-26-2011, 21:09
I personally do not agree with these laws or the latest court ruling in Indiana for example.what do you not agree with?
on what basis?I have one, two additional questions.

You don't agree with the law. Does that mean you believe the law is unconstitutional?

Second question, what is your personal opinion of those who enforce laws you deem unconstitutional?

Patchman
07-26-2011, 21:56
And as noted before, the law was passed via the usual and recognized Federal legislative process. And at this point in time there has been no judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court. So the law, as of today, is very constitutionally valid.

So a third question can be asked. If you feel this law is unconstitutional, do you believe the legislative process also is unconstitutional?

scottydl
07-27-2011, 00:03
And the reason I asked police on here, is because THEY are in charge of enforcing parts of it. I would imagine they would consider the constitutionality of the things they do would they not?

Consider I suppose, but personal opinion does not necessarily equal what we will act upon. We have to enforce laws that we disagree with all the time, and the opposite is also true. There sure are some things I'd like to be illegal, but I can't wish it so. Our job is enforcing what's on the books, or more appropriately what our bosses and local jurisdictions demand that we enforce. Most places have old laws on the books that are ignored. We enforce what we're told or get penalized, and rightfully so based on the oath we take.

TreverSlyFox
07-27-2011, 00:43
I would imagine they would consider the constitutionality of the things they do would they not?

Or am I assuming too much here?


You are assuming WAY TOO MUCH.

Cochese
07-27-2011, 00:50
You are assuming WAY TOO MUCH.

I assume you are a *********.

Too much or too little?

:dunno: :wavey:

Bravo 1
07-27-2011, 04:11
I have one, two additional questions.

You don't agree with the law. Does that mean you believe the law is unconstitutional?

Second question, what is your personal opinion of those who enforce laws you deem unconstitutional?

If you read the Bill of rights, and the Constitution, then yes, they are both unconstitutional. So are other laws

SCOTUS is becoming pretty notorious for watering down the Constitution and Bill of rights.

And the more "empathatic" justices :ack: that are appointed, the more we lose.

Bravo 1
07-27-2011, 04:12
Consider I suppose, but personal opinion does not necessarily equal what we will act upon. We have to enforce laws that we disagree with all the time, and the opposite is also true. There sure are some things I'd like to be illegal, but I can't wish it so. Our job is enforcing what's on the books, or more appropriately what our bosses and local jurisdictions demand that we enforce. Most places have old laws on the books that are ignored. We enforce what we're told or get penalized, and rightfully so based on the oath we take.


Fair enough. That has been the concensus so far with the guys I know personally.

Bravo 1
07-27-2011, 04:14
And as noted before, the law was passed via the usual and recognized Federal legislative process. And at this point in time there has been no judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court. So the law, as of today, is very constitutionally valid.

So a third question can be asked. If you feel this law is unconstitutional, do you believe the legislative process also is unconstitutional?


I feel the legislative process is corrupted.


And SCOTUS is not really the final authority. imho, judging from some things they have ruled.

Bravo 1
07-27-2011, 04:22
And as noted before, the law was passed via the usual and recognized Federal legislative process. And at this point in time there has been no judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court. So the law, as of today, is very constitutionally valid.

So a third question can be asked. If you feel this law is unconstitutional, do you believe the legislative process also is unconstitutional?


I feel the legislative process is corrupted and cancerous.

Bravo 1
07-27-2011, 04:25
what do you not agree with?
on what basis?



Basically, if someone "suspects" terrorism. It is carte' blanche on searches, seizures, survelliance etc.

I am not saying all police will abuse this, what I am saying is this. Some will and that is bad.

Kahr_Glockman
07-27-2011, 04:25
Your opinion is just that, an opinion. While important to you it is really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. As far as constitutionality SCOTUS is the final say. If this ceases to be the case then sharpen your pitchfork.

I have said it before and will say it again and again, If you don't like a law or a set of laws work in the system to get rid if them. This is why we have legislators and vote them into office every two years.

SCOTUS IMO, which in the grand scheme of things is about as valuableas yours, does a decent job and can prevent, or check the swing of our government to far to the right or left.

Kahr_Glockman
07-27-2011, 04:31
Basically, if someone "suspects" terrorism. It is carte' blanche on searches, seizures, survelliance etc.

I am not saying all police will abuse this, what I am saying is this. Some will and that is bad.

There are still guidelines to using the Patriot Act and it is still limited by the 4th amendment. In the 9 years I have been in Law Enforcement I have personal knowledge of ZERO instances of when it has been used.

In fact I had a case where my agency TRIED to get fed involvement and we got blown off.

Patchman
07-27-2011, 04:37
The U.S. is certainly not the most perfect country in the world, which is why it has a very generous emigration policy.

I'm sure there are plenty of other countries in this world that have political systems which pretty much fit everyone's taste. So go vote with your feet.

RussP
07-27-2011, 06:04
I have one, two additional questions.

You don't agree with the law. Does that mean you believe the law is unconstitutional?

Second question, what is your personal opinion of those who enforce laws you deem unconstitutional?
If you read the Bill of rights, and the Constitution, then yes, they are both unconstitutional. So are other laws

SCOTUS is becoming pretty notorious for watering down the Constitution and Bill of rights.

And the more "empathatic" justices :ack: that are appointed, the more we lose.You did not answer the second question.

txleapd
07-27-2011, 07:26
Okay, some of you guys take yourselves WAY too seriously.

One thinks it is a trap...

That one also happens to be a Mod in this forum.

Just saying....

Peace Frog
07-27-2011, 08:07
I'm not a LEO nor have I ever played one on TV but I know a lot of them.I have family who are retired from LE and who have worked for one of the alphabet agencies.I also since being unable to drive semi's anymore since a accident have done several ride alongs.None of the LE I know even mention the Patriot Act much less used it in any of their LE duties.
Personally I don't think it benefits local LE much but I do believe the alphabet agencies (Federal) use it extensively.It seems to be written for Federal agencies.Of course I have no proof but my gut feeling tells me so and my gut feeling has been right 99% of the time.:supergrin:


There's a few documentaries out there,you just have to read between the paranoia and pull parts from each one to get to the truth.Yes some of the videos are from PBS like Frontline but there is some truth mixed in...you just have to find it.


:wavey:

RussP
07-27-2011, 08:39
That one also happens to be a Mod in this forum.

Just saying....My position carries no weight and has nothing to do with my comment and its intent. :impatient:

Peace Frog
07-27-2011, 09:22
Frontline:Spying On The Homefront...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyKLSpwjZb8


Also the Congress should have refused to bring the Bill up for a vote because the final draft of the Bill that was voted on was printed at 0345 and voted on at 1100...Nobody had time to read through that Bill before voting on it.But they did...everybody who voted YEA should be sent packing.A Bill such as the Patriot Act takes weeks if not months to be analyzed correctly.


http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml

Mayhem like Me
07-27-2011, 10:08
I feel the legislative process is corrupted and cancerous.

Try feeling less and thinking more..

Peace Frog
07-27-2011, 11:30
Another film...very poor video quality but watchable.You have to sift through the liberal talking points to get to the truth.

Found a better quality video...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR6qH_wZgEg&feature=related

DaBigBR
07-27-2011, 11:32
Gentlemen, I believe it's time:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v137/allglock/hre.gif

Peace Frog
07-27-2011, 11:41
Gentlemen, I believe it's time:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v137/allglock/hre.gif

Like I said you have to sift through the BS but there is some truth in these documentaries.

Any particular part of the videos you disagree with?

:dunno:

This thread is about the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act from the views of LE...Just curious?


:wavey:

DaBigBR
07-27-2011, 11:44
Like I said you have to sift through the BS but there is some truth in these documentaries.

Any particular part of the videos you disagree with?

:dunno:

This thread is about the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act from the views of LE...Just curious?


:wavey:

That would be reference the whole thread. This is NOT the place on Glock Talk for this type of stuff. Read the post, from the site administration, at the top of the Cop Talk subforum.

Peace Frog
07-27-2011, 11:49
That would be reference the whole thread. This is NOT the place on Glock Talk for this type of stuff. Read the post, from the site administration, at the top of the Cop Talk subforum.

Gotcha...

I agree it should be in the Civil Liberties Forum.


:wavey:

Bravo 1
07-27-2011, 16:41
You did not answer the second question.


MAN,,,,:wow: You ARE a slave driver aren't you?


(yes,that was intended as yet, another tongue-in-cheek joke)


Well, having worn the uniform of our country at one time, many tears ago, I too took an oath to defend our county against all enemies both foreign and domestic. So I consider myself a bit of revolutionary by todays standards.

Considering that every man and woman has to live with their decisions and actions, I would say that what I think is unimportant really.

I do not to wish to pass judgement on our police in this case, I will just say that there is a significant difference between a constitutional issue and a felonious traffic stop.

I hope that answers you query Russ,if not I will add this.

RE: Katrina aftermath,

In the case of US troops and LEOs' from around the country collecting privately owned weapons from peaceful,law abiding, citizens on their own property. I strongly disagree with their actions to say the least.

And in that case, I would consider them a traitor against what this country was founded on AND for.

Again, it is difficult to have this type of dialogue on a forum, hell, it isn't easy in person sometimes, I am not trying to flame anybody, just point out that some things are worth fighting for.

Bravo 1
07-27-2011, 16:42
Try feeling less and thinking more..

:rofl: I saw what you did there. :wavey:

Bravo 1
07-27-2011, 16:48
That would be reference the whole thread. This is NOT the place on Glock Talk for this type of stuff. Read the post, from the site administration, at the top of the Cop Talk subforum.



Well aside from your panties being on a little too tight, as long as the topic strays from the original intent you are correct.

My question is a very basic one and not one of constitutional scholars.

What do regular LEOs' think (not feel):whistling: about the occasion where they are confronted with this legal morass. Albeit, it is rare, it can undoubtedly happen.

More of an informal opinion poll, nothing more.

RussP
07-27-2011, 20:57
MAN,,,,:wow: You ARE a slave driver aren't you?


(yes,that was intended as yet, another tongue-in-cheek joke)


Well, having worn the uniform of our country at one time, many tears ago, I too took an oath to defend our county against all enemies both foreign and domestic. So I consider myself a bit of revolutionary by todays standards.

Considering that every man and woman has to live with their decisions and actions, I would say that what I think is unimportant really.

I do not to wish to pass judgement on our police in this case, I will just say that there is a significant difference between a constitutional issue and a felonious traffic stop.

I hope that answers you query Russ,if not I will add this.

RE: Katrina aftermath,

In the case of US troops and LEOs' from around the country collecting privately owned weapons from peaceful,law abiding, citizens on their own property. I strongly disagree with their actions to say the least.

And in that case, I would consider them a traitor against what this country was founded on AND for.

Again, it is difficult to have this type of dialogue on a forum, hell, it isn't easy in person sometimes, I am not trying to flame anybody, just point out that some things are worth fighting for.You ask for opinions from law enforcement on the Patriot Act, stating you consider the law unconstitutional.

I asked, "what is your personal opinion of those who enforce laws you deem unconstitutional? Your answer is, "I do not to wish to pass judgement on our police in this case, I will just say that there is a significant difference between a constitutional issue and a felonious traffic stop."

Why did you interject "a felonious traffic stop" into a thread on the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act? Deflection?

Then, for clarification, you cite post-Katrina gun confiscations and say those who carried out the confiscations, you consider them traitors?

Yes or no, are you equating the actions and events in NOLA to law enforcement operating under the Patriot Act?

Yes or no, do you believe law enforcement officers who utilize the Patriot Act are traitors?

scottydl
07-28-2011, 00:01
What do regular LEOs' think (not feel):whistling: about the occasion where they are confronted with this legal morass. Albeit, it is rare, it can undoubtedly happen.

It appears that not too many of us have given it serious thought, since we never deal with it. Patriot Act is designed for large-scale federal investigations (that likely aren't publicly discussed on internet forums), and most of us are shiftwork 8-hr local/state/county patrol guys.

As far as the potential abuse of Patriot Act by LEO, I think it's largely overblown. The feds can already spy on us for a variety of potential offenses (suspected drugs, suspected money laundering, suspected racketeering, probably even suspected mail fraud), but some cause still has to be shown for those investigative methods to be allowed. Patriot Act just added the component of terrorism, it didn't give some broad sweeping abilities to the government that weren't already there in some context or another.

If the feds think I'm a terrorist, then fine let them listen to my phone calls for awhile. They'll quickly learn that their intel is misguided and will quit wasting time on me so they can move on to something else.

Peace Frog
07-28-2011, 06:23
It appears that not too many of us have given it serious thought, since we never deal with it. Patriot Act is designed for large-scale federal investigations (that likely aren't publicly discussed on internet forums), and most of us are shiftwork 8-hr local/state/county patrol guys.

As far as the potential abuse of Patriot Act by LEO, I think it's largely overblown. The feds can already spy on us for a variety of potential offenses (suspected drugs, suspected money laundering, suspected racketeering, probably even suspected mail fraud), but some cause still has to be shown for those investigative methods to be allowed. Patriot Act just added the component of terrorism, it didn't give some broad sweeping abilities to the government that weren't already there in some context or another.

If the feds think I'm a terrorist, then fine let them listen to my phone calls for awhile. They'll quickly learn that their intel is misguided and will quit wasting time on me so they can move on to something else.

I agree with 99% of your post but broad sweeping changes were made.Watch those documentaries,there is truth in there at times.


:wavey:

Peace Frog
07-28-2011, 08:55
One example of abuse of Patriot Act by FBI in regards to NSL...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031302277.html

scottydl
07-28-2011, 23:45
One example of abuse of Patriot Act by FBI in regards to NSL...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031302277.html

That story seems to state that some of the NSL use was outside the bounds of the Patriot Act... not that the Patriot Act itself was misused. NSL's look like they are a separate animal altogether.

And again, I don't really care what tools the FBI uses to investigate terrorists, whether they are in the U.S. or abroad. I'm not one, so the prying doesn't bother me. I can't figure out most days why people who have nothing to worry about are worried. All of our information is discoverable online these days anyhow, so it's not like the government is going to find something out that is completely confidential to the rest of the world.