The Patriot Act Extended

[Aurielius]

 

Of course everything I say has to be just for giggles because you disagree with it...

 

"One section of the Act (section 805) prohibited "material support" for terrorists, and in particular included "expert advice or assistance."[139] This was struck down as unconstitutional by a U.S. Federal Court after the Humanitarian Law Project filed a civil action against the U.S. government."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

 

Which came from the following sources.

http://hlp.home.igc.org/docs/press/patact012604.html

 

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hlpash12304ord.pdf (this is a pdf download)

 

OK, I am going to give you credit for the PDF which is a primary source but does not support your contention of unconstitutionality. The Wiki link and the AP link are secondary sources which as usual you quote as if written in stone. You do know what a primary source is? You are aware that the portion that you are referring to was a judgment that was made in Federal Circuit Court 2004 brought on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project and subsequently overruled in the Supreme Court in 2010? In case you missed Civics class for that relevant day, the latter trumps the former.

 

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project In a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court essentially dismissed a challenge to the material support law brought by the Humanitarian Law Project.That is in June 2010. There is nothing like a primary source laddie, so I would be still laughing if it were not so sad that adequate research seems to be something that still eludes you. If you looked up West Law or even the Washington Post instead of Wiki you might not be called up short and wanting. BTW I did read all of your posts leading up to the point where I called you out on erroneous fact presentation.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Aurielius

[marharth]

 

Of course everything I say has to be just for giggles because you disagree with it...

 

"One section of the Act (section 805) prohibited "material support" for terrorists, and in particular included "expert advice or assistance."[139] This was struck down as unconstitutional by a U.S. Federal Court after the Humanitarian Law Project filed a civil action against the U.S. government."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

 

Which came from the following sources.

http://hlp.home.igc.org/docs/press/patact012604.html

 

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hlpash12304ord.pdf (this is a pdf download)

 

OK, I am going to give you credit for the PDF which is a primary source but does not support your contention of unconstitutionality. The Wiki link and the AP link are secondary sources which as usual you quote as if written in stone. You do know what a primary source is? You are aware that the portion that you are referring to was a judgment that was made in Federal Circuit Court 2004 brought on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project and subsequently overruled in the Supreme Court in 2010? In case you missed Civics class for that relevant day, the latter trumps the former.

 

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project In a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court essentially dismissed a challenge to the material support law brought by the Humanitarian Law Project.That is in June 2010. There is nothing like a primary source laddie, so I would be still laughing if it were not so sad that adequate research seems to be something that still eludes you. If you looked up West Law or even the Washington Post instead of Wiki you might not be called up short and wanting. BTW I did read all of your posts leading up to the point where I called you out on erroneous fact presentation.

"You are aware that the portion that you are referring to was a judgment that was made in Federal Circuit Court 2004 brought on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project and subsequently overruled in the Supreme Court in 2010?"

 

"I am not sure if the current patriot act in unconstitutional, but the one that was originally passed was unconstitutional without question."

 

By the "current patriot act" I was also referring to any future rulings.

 

Also that link was not a AP link, it was included a source from a AP story, but it also had a PDF download as well.

 

I am not entirety sure why everyone has to talk about the supreme court rulings, they debate about things and make rulings, just because they are in a high position of government does not mean they are completely correct with the rulings.

 

Want to discuss why you think section 805 is constitutional without quoting judges?

Edited June 1, 2011 by marharth

[Aurielius]

 

Of course everything I say has to be just for giggles because you disagree with it...

"One section of the Act (section 805) prohibited "material support" for terrorists, and in particular included "expert advice or assistance."[139] This was struck down as unconstitutional by a U.S. Federal Court after the Humanitarian Law Project filed a civil action against the U.S. government."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Which came from the following sources.

http://hlp.home.igc.org/docs/press/patact012604.html

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hlpash12304ord.pdf (this is a pdf download)

 

OK, I am going to give you credit for the PDF which is a primary source but does not support your contention of unconstitutionality. The Wiki link and the AP link are secondary sources which as usual you quote as if written in stone. You do know what a primary source is? You are aware that the portion that you are referring to was a judgment that was made in Federal Circuit Court 2004 brought on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project and subsequently overruled in the Supreme Court in 2010? In case you missed Civics class for that relevant day, the latter trumps the former.

 

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project In a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court essentially dismissed a challenge to the material support law brought by the Humanitarian Law Project.That is in June 2010. There is nothing like a primary source laddie, so I would be still laughing if it were not so sad that adequate research seems to be something that still eludes you. If you looked up West Law or even the Washington Post instead of Wiki you might not be called up short and wanting. BTW I did read all of your posts leading up to the point where I called you out on erroneous fact presentation.

"You are aware that the portion that you are referring to was a judgment that was made in Federal Circuit Court 2004 brought on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project and subsequently overruled in the Supreme Court in 2010?"

 

"I am not sure if the current patriot act in unconstitutional, but the one that was originally passed was unconstitutional without question."

By the "current patriot act" I was also referring to any future rulings.

Also that link was not a AP link, it was included a source from a AP story, but it also had a PDF download as well.

I am not entirety sure why everyone has to talk about the supreme court rulings, they debate about things and make rulings, just because they are in a high position of government does not mean they are completely correct with the rulings.

Want to discuss why you think section 805 is constitutional without quoting judges?

 

Unbelievable, even when called out on the facts and shown case and point with irrefutable evidence you lack the grace to admit you are wrong. It seems that you want to debate out of a narcissist impulse to see your baseless opinions in print an affectation I no longer wish to indulge you in, consider this remedial civics class dismissed. I should have charged you tuition but since you seemed to have learned nothing that too is pointless.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Aurielius

[grannywils]

Marharth: "I am not entirety sure why everyone has to talk about the supreme court rulings, they debate about things and make rulings, just because they are in a high position of government does not mean they are completely correct with the rulings.

Want to discuss why you think section 805 is constitutional without quoting judges?"

 

Me: I'm sure you know from the Constitution that there are three sections of the Government. They are the Legislative (Congress), the Executive (the President), and the Judicial (The Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish)

 

Therefore, it confuses me that you would not understand why people are bringing up Supreme Court decisions. The are the highest court in the land and the final word on these matters.

 

The framers of the Consitution built it this way on purpose. If you read it, you might find it kind of interesting. Just a suggestion...

[csgators]

Marharth: "I am not entirety sure why everyone has to talk about the supreme court rulings, they debate about things and make rulings, just because they are in a high position of government does not mean they are completely correct with the rulings.

Want to discuss why you think section 805 is constitutional without quoting judges?"

 

Me: I'm sure you know from the Constitution that there are three sections of the Government. They are the Legislative (Congress), the Executive (the President), and the Judicial (The Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish)

 

Therefore, it confuses me that you would not understand why people are bringing up Supreme Court decisions. The are the highest court in the land and the final word on these matters.

 

The framers of the Consitution built it this way on purpose. If you read it, you might find it kind of interesting. Just a suggestion...

 

That doesn't mean I agree with their rulings, over the last few hundred years they have managed to pervert the original meaning and intent of the constitution beyond all recognition. I am actually kinda with Marharth on this, just cause they say it's Constitutional that does not mean I agree. Yes, technically it is Constitutional since the Supreme Court said it is but the Supreme Court also said slavery was Constitutional at one point, they also say the government can take your land simply if they can put it "better use", better use being giving it a strip mall developer.

[grannywils]

CS, we can start a whole new thread on whether or not we agree with Supreme Court rulings in the past. That was not intended to be the issue here. They are still the highest court in the land, and whether or not we agree with their decisions, their decisions are, in fact the "final word". I could list you very quickly several with which I have disagreed.

 

PS, and yes, they have occasionally been known to reverse some of their decisions.

[csgators]

CS, we can start a whole new thread on whether or not we agree with Supreme Court rulings in the past. That was not intended to be the issue here. They are still the highest court in the land, and whether or not we agree with their decisions, their decisions are, in fact the "final word". I could list you very quickly several with which I have disagreed.

 

PS, and yes, they have occasionally been known to reverse some of their decisions.

 

A thread wouldn't cover the bad decisions. :)

[marharth]

 

Of course everything I say has to be just for giggles because you disagree with it...

"One section of the Act (section 805) prohibited "material support" for terrorists, and in particular included "expert advice or assistance."[139] This was struck down as unconstitutional by a U.S. Federal Court after the Humanitarian Law Project filed a civil action against the U.S. government."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Which came from the following sources.

http://hlp.home.igc.org/docs/press/patact012604.html

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hlpash12304ord.pdf (this is a pdf download)

 

OK, I am going to give you credit for the PDF which is a primary source but does not support your contention of unconstitutionality. The Wiki link and the AP link are secondary sources which as usual you quote as if written in stone. You do know what a primary source is? You are aware that the portion that you are referring to was a judgment that was made in Federal Circuit Court 2004 brought on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project and subsequently overruled in the Supreme Court in 2010? In case you missed Civics class for that relevant day, the latter trumps the former.

 

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project In a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court essentially dismissed a challenge to the material support law brought by the Humanitarian Law Project.That is in June 2010. There is nothing like a primary source laddie, so I would be still laughing if it were not so sad that adequate research seems to be something that still eludes you. If you looked up West Law or even the Washington Post instead of Wiki you might not be called up short and wanting. BTW I did read all of your posts leading up to the point where I called you out on erroneous fact presentation.

"You are aware that the portion that you are referring to was a judgment that was made in Federal Circuit Court 2004 brought on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project and subsequently overruled in the Supreme Court in 2010?"

 

"I am not sure if the current patriot act in unconstitutional, but the one that was originally passed was unconstitutional without question."

By the "current patriot act" I was also referring to any future rulings.

Also that link was not a AP link, it was included a source from a AP story, but it also had a PDF download as well.

I am not entirety sure why everyone has to talk about the supreme court rulings, they debate about things and make rulings, just because they are in a high position of government does not mean they are completely correct with the rulings.

Want to discuss why you think section 805 is constitutional without quoting judges?

 

Unbelievable, even when called out on the facts and shown case and point with irrefutable evidence you lack the grace to admit you are wrong. It seems that you want to debate out of a narcissist impulse to see your baseless opinions in print an affectation I no longer wish to indulge you in, consider this remedial civics class dismissed. I should have charged you tuition but since you seemed to have learned nothing that too is pointless.

It is not my problem you did not read my post like you claimed.

 

What did you think I meant by "current patriot act?"

 

I thought it was quite obvious that I was referring to any future ruling that could change the meaning of it.

 

It would be a good idea to quit assuming that you are smart enough to charge people tuition as well, from what I have seen you have good vocabulary and knowledge of history, that does not instantly mean you can claim you right about something despite me making it clear before hand I was arguing that the patriot act in 2001 was unconstitutional, not the patriot act now.

 

The patriot now is currently ruled as constitutional, and a large number of people agree on that. I was speaking of it when it was first passed.

 

Seeing as this topic was the patriot act being extended, why would I be arguing about parts that were not extended? I was trying to prove that it was considered unconstitutional at the original date of its creation. I was more specifcally replying to RZ with the following quotes...

 

"As for the Patriot Act, I don't get where most people are saying it's unconstitutional. I don't remember much about the actual passing of it, as I was a few years younger (obviously) and wasn't quite so interested in politics and such at the time. However, as far as the actual provisions within it, I don't really see where it goes against the Constitution. "

 

"The three sections that Obama extended: -Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones. -Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations. -Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group."

 

To me it seems quite clear I was discussing the original patriot act, if you don't seem to understand that it is certainly not my issue.

 

Also cgastors pretty much said everything I wanted to say on the supreme court, even though they are the highest court, that does not mean you should instantly agree with all the decisions.

Edited June 2, 2011 by marharth

[ginnyfizz]

CS, we can start a whole new thread on whether or not we agree with Supreme Court rulings in the past. That was not intended to be the issue here. They are still the highest court in the land, and whether or not we agree with their decisions, their decisions are, in fact the "final word". I could list you very quickly several with which I have disagreed.

 

PS, and yes, they have occasionally been known to reverse some of their decisions.

 

Grannywils, that says what I would have said. The decision of the Supreme Court binds any lower courts, whether you like what they decided or not. That happens with any highly developed court system anywhere in the world, and so do eccentric decisions.

[marharth]

CS, we can start a whole new thread on whether or not we agree with Supreme Court rulings in the past. That was not intended to be the issue here. They are still the highest court in the land, and whether or not we agree with their decisions, their decisions are, in fact the "final word". I could list you very quickly several with which I have disagreed.

 

PS, and yes, they have occasionally been known to reverse some of their decisions.

 

Grannywils, that says what I would have said. The decision of the Supreme Court binds any lower courts, whether you like what they decided or not. That happens with any highly developed court system anywhere in the world, and so do eccentric decisions.

So would you instantly agree with anything the supreme court says?

 

That doesn't seem like a very good idea to me. I would think it would be better to be open minded and see form your own opinions, and not just blindly follow the rulings.