Parts of patriot act declared unconsitutional!

Well that's typical of these dab-burned librul judges who have an agenda and push that on voters! :drink:

Those librul judges who decreed that ain't ee-lekted :bang: .

Seriously though, the terrorists will attack us more now because we can't spy on our own people!

So what is the neocon response? Don't you think someone ought to be tarred and feathered over this?

Where did you get the report? Link? What parts were unconstitutional?

<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040126/ts_nm/security_patriotact_dc' target='_blank'>Sorry, here....</a>

KlutzDio I Wrote:Parts of patriot act declared unconsitutional!

Well that's typical of these dab-burned librul judges who have an agenda and push that on voters! :drink:

Those librul judges who decreed that ain't ee-lekted :bang: .

Seriously though, the terrorists will attack us more now because we can't spy on our own people!

So what is the neocon response? Don't you think someone ought to be tarred and feathered over this?

YES!!! thank you KD. finally people will have to agree that parts of the pat act are unconstitutional. I've been saying it for a little while now and nobody seems to agree.

KD, do you honestly think Conservatives don't know that THAT Bi-Partisan act was a little unconstitutional? Here's another UNCONSTITUTIONAL POS: The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. Why? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, <span style='color:blue'>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,</span>

With this POS YOU, as a private citizen, can't take out an ad against Bush within 60 days of an election.

RebelKev Wrote:KD, do you honestly think Conservatives don't know that THAT Bi-Partisan act was a little unconstitutional? Here's another UNCONSTITUTIONAL POS: The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. Why? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, <span style='color:blue'>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,</span>

With this POS YOU, as a private citizen, can't take out an ad against Bush within 60 days of an election.

Any idiot with half a brain knows that you can get around that stuff... So "the free exercise of religion"... so if someone wants to blow themselves up in the name of Allah and kill 30 civilians as their "free exercise of religion", is it constitutional?

nate jonesacc Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:KD, do you honestly think Conservatives don't know that THAT Bi-Partisan act was a little unconstitutional? Here's another UNCONSTITUTIONAL POS: The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. Why? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, <span style='color:blue'>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,</span>

With this POS YOU, as a private citizen, can't take out an ad against Bush within 60 days of an election.

Any idiot with half a brain knows that you can get around that stuff... So "the free exercise of religion"... so if someone wants to blow themselves up in the name of Allah and kill 30 civilians as their "free exercise of religion", is it constitutional?

Your rights end where another's begins retard.

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:KD, do you honestly think Conservatives don't know that THAT Bi-Partisan act was a little unconstitutional? Here's another UNCONSTITUTIONAL POS: The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. Why? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, <span style='color:blue'>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,</span>

With this POS YOU, as a private citizen, can't take out an ad against Bush within 60 days of an election.

Any idiot with half a brain knows that you can get around that stuff... So "the free exercise of religion"... so if someone wants to blow themselves up in the name of Allah and kill 30 civilians as their "free exercise of religion", is it constitutional?

Your rights end where another's begins retard.

Just explaining how you can get around the loosely worded Constitution. Lawyers do it everyday.

Quote:"It underscores what so many have said all along about the Patriot Act -- that Congress, in acting so hastily after 9-11, swept far too broadly and didn't pay significant attention to constitutional rights and liberties."

- David Cole, Georgetown University

This quote is a very powerful description of America's ability to defend itself. Ex: In WWII, Japanese-American's were put in internment camps, despite having US citizenship, for reasons of national security. The government can't restrict civil liberties and rights to protect the country, forcing the government to have limited resources to deter terror and violence because many things happen in secret that could be prevented if the govn't knew. Of course, this is by no means the final verdict on the constitutionality of the PATRIOT Acts.

What if they had 2 versions the PATRIOT Act? One that applied to non-citizens (who are not protected under the US Constitution) and one for citizens which limited the government's powers?

Personally I would give up some civil liberties if it made me safer, but that's just me.

Of course you would.

You would suck the end of a cat of nine tails if your mother promised you red velvet cake.

Sycophancy really doesn't need affirming, does it?

Anyway, good on those courts. It's about time somebody noticed that spying on America won't help stop nineteen guys with boxcutters and a willingness to die.