The Patriot ActEssay Preview: The Patriot ActReport this essayThe Patriot ActThe Patriot Act is a bill that was passed in the wake of 9/11/01. Not even two months after the horrific event which we all know as 911, the bill was passed with great haste and secrecy. The bill was passed on October 26, 2001. The bill was passed to raise the security of the country. Sadly many speculate that most of the members in congress did not even read the 342 page bill. Within a matter of days the executive branch with its new powers began to initiate many new executive orders, policies, regulations and practices that many feel threaten our rights.
The bill has expanded terrorism laws to include domestic terrorism which subjects political organizations to be surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal charges for political advocacy. Many feel that this is an attack on the first amendment, which is freedom of religion, speech, assembly and freedom of the press.
The bill has also expanded the powers of law enforcement agencies(police, FBI, CIA, NSA). Law enforcement agents now have the ability to conduct secret searches, place telephone and internet surveillance, and can access personal medical, financial, and student records with minimal judicial oversight. Many feel that this is an attack on the fourth amendment which is freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The FBI agents because of the bill can now investigate American citizens for criminal matters without probable cause, as long as they say it is for intelligence purposes. They also can arrest non-citizens on mere suspicion alone. This goes against the fifth amendment, which states that no person is to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. None citizens can also be denied readmission to the U.S for using their right of free speech. This goes against the first amendment which is stated in the second paragraph.
Suspects can also be detained indefinitely in six months increments without any real judicial review. This goes against the first, the fifth, both of which are stated in the paragraphs above. It also goes against the fourteenth, eighth and sixth amendment. The fourteenth amendment states that all persons (Citizens and non-citizens) within the US are entitled to due process and the equal protection of the laws. The eighth amendment states that no excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment shall be imposed. The sixth amendment states that everyone has the right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury, right to be informed of the facts of the accusation, right to confront witnesses and have the assistance of counsel.
The ACLU of California filed a request with the US government challenging the order. The ACLU of California asked whether the Obama administration’s decision to extend a six year temporary injunction was so arbitrary that the Court could grant the right as a constitutional right, or whether it was actually too much. One jurist at the University of Wisconsin told the Guardian that the court was not given the authority to determine how to proceed under existing law. In an op-ed published in the Guardian of 1 September 2011, Judge Cisneros told the court that the court should leave the authority for it to decide, adding, “This Court has a right to take any step necessary to stop the unconstitutional orders of officials who rule on the basis of law.”
This morning, a federal judge, Susan Cisneros, who has been on the bench for nine years, denied a motion to dismiss, saying the Obama Administration has “substantial legal ground to suggest” a “substantial amount of statutory infringement” has been applied to the order before her, not to the Supreme Court. The ruling is in a case brought by the Department of Justice against an Obama administration judge over the order ordering agencies to monitor the Obama-administration’s executive staff, without their understanding or consent, “unlawfully or inappropriately”. The Obama Administration has since rejected the appeals, claiming this is unconstitutional in its own way.
Yesterday, a federal judge issued a four-judge bench of 10-3 and ordered the agency responsible for the executive ordering to detain the Trump campaign associates “and all of those charged with participating in the Trump campaign or any of its members, employees, representatives, contractors, and members of their families and associates and any affiliated entities or individuals, and any person related to their participation in the Trump campaign or any of its operations, for six months and have the option to stay that order for conduct based on allegations of criminal activity by the candidate or any of their advisers.”
Cisneros added the four-judge bench “will decide the question” as to whether Congress has an authority to impose such a lengthy ban on federal political campaigns as the Executive Branch allows under this constitutionality. Cisneros said she could not tell the court how long it will take to decide. “I’ll keep the options open for it, but it’s not a decision I’m prepared to take lightly,” she said. A DOJ source told us Cisneros “has yet to make a decision.”
With Trump campaign officials, who in September issued a press release asking for people to stay in line while Trump was in DC, to stay in line and not wait, the ACLU of California is requesting that the administration do everything they can to stay out of jail and put them back in line. According to the ACLU, the Obama directive that “unmasking members of Donald Trump’s transition team and members of his family” was unconstitutional “is no different than ordering national security aides