Unconstitutional “Patriot” Act Extended

As most of you may know, the so-called “Patriot” Act was recently extended. It was originally thought that the act would pass without opposition, but the Patriot Act failed the House vote originally by eight votes. It was later passed once it was put up for a second vote where only a majority was needed instead of two thirds. On Tuesday, the Senate passed a three month extension of the “Patriot” Act by a 86 to 12 vote. Some Senate members are attempting to pass the act permanently.

Much of the opposition in the Senate was led by Senator Rand Paul. “Now we have essentially government agents, akin to soldiers, writing warrants; it’s ripe for abuse,” said Senator Paul. The senator has also posted a press release explaining why he opposes the Act and encouraging his fellow congressmen to do the same.

In his letter, Rand Paul cites American revolutionist James Otis, who argued against general warrants and writs of assistance. During his time, they were often used without judicial approval by British soldiers and included no restrictions or description of what or where was to be searched or seized. He described these warrants as “the worst instrument[s] of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever w[ere] found in an English law book.” His objected was based on his belief that these warrants “placed the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.” Rand Paul analogously described his resistance to the “Patriot” Act as similar to Otis’s opposition to the writs of assistance.

Rand Paul addressed the Senate, arguing against the “Patriot” Act. He later discussed the “Patriot” Act’s renewal with Judge Andrew Napolitano on Freedom Watch:

Ron Paul also led the opposition in the House; unfortunately, his words fell on deaf ears. You can hear his address to the House of “Representatives” here.

According to Rand Paul in the video above, the “Patriot” Act has been used 200,000 times in the last ten years. Furthermore, so-called “suspicious bank accounts” were reported 2,000,000 times, from banks to the FBI. These bank records also merit some attention; most of these 2,000,000 bank records were from American citizens! This is an enormous infringement on privacy.

The Provisions that were set to expire and were voted upon are perhaps the worst parts of the “Patriot” Act, and addressed roving wiretapping, governmental seizures, and the “lone wolf provision.” The roving wiretapping allows law enforcement officials to use surveillance without identifying the individual who is going to be wiretapped or at what location. One section allows governmental seizures of “any tangible thing.” The “lone wolf” provision allows electronic monitoring of a person without proof that the suspect is an foreign agent or terrorist.

It should be clear that the so-called “Patriot” Act is an enormous infringement to our 4th amendment right to privacy, ignores the fact that only judges can issue warrants. However, for those of you who may be skeptical, here is the text of the Fourth Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Think about it. Under the “Patriot” Act, law enforcement can participate in searches and seizures without a Judge’s approval. Now all it takes is an FBI letter, and their decision can be based on arbitrary terms; they can essentially search, seizure, or surveille anything they want. Anyone – law-abiding American citizens included – can be victims of the “Patriot” Act. 200,000 American’s already have. You no longer have a right to privacy, America.

The “Patriot Act” is anything but patriotic. We’re not drifting towards a police state, we are already there.

Police Statism Shows Its Ugly Face in an Arkansas Town

In the small town of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, authoritarianistic ideas are being enacted. The town is known for its high crime rates and poverty levels. Because of the increased violence and crime, the City Council imposed a 24-hour curfew based off a 9-0 vote. The curfew started out in a ten-block, high crime area of the city; however, yesterday the City Council expanded the curfew to cover the entire city. If police find people on the street, they can stop and question them. This has resulted in several arrests. The city went ahead with a city-wide curfew, despite an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who warned them that these actions were unconstitutional. The City Council said that they want the shootings, drugs, and violence to stop, regardless of the cost.

“Now if somebody wants to sue us, they have an option to sue, but I’m fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the way the citizens see it here,” Mayor James Valley said. “The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution.”

“We’ve had people call us, expressing concern for their children,” Fielder, the Police Chief said. “They had to sleep on the floor, because of stray bullets.”

“As far as I’m concerned, at 3 o’clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law,” Councilman Eugene “Red” Johnson said. “Anyone out at 3 o’clock shouldn’t be out on the street, unless you’re going to the hospital.”

The Mayor seems to think that the Judge will side with something unconstitutional because it’s necessary; the Police Chief plays on the fears of the citizens; and the Councilman seems to think he knows what the people should and shouldn’t do, despite the fact there is no law to support his claim. That being said, so far it appears that, rather than arresting anyone for violating the curfew, the police simply ask questions. If they act nervous or odd, they’re further interrogated or searched.

The situation is obviously a delicate one. The city has to balance the rights of its citizens with increased crime; it appears, however, that the city has a high disregard for its citizens rights.

The U.S. Constitution says, in the first amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

A 24 hour curfew seems like a violation of the right to assemble. Why can’t a lawful citizen go out of their house when they like? According to the city’s government, it’s because of crime. However, is the threat of harm or unlawfulness sufficient enough to infringe on the right of the people? Most certainly not. Additionally, the city may have issue with our fourth amendment right, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The fourth amendment states that:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

As of yet, it doesn’t appear this has been an issue, though it very well could become one in the near future. For example, say a police offer stops a man leaving his house (without cause). They have no bases to stop him, yet they do. They then deem that he is acting “suspiciously.” They can then search them. In such a situation, the police would be violating not one, but two fundamental rights of the American people.

It seems as if the city government is playing on the fear of its citizens. Essential, this is an example of extending government reach on a local level. The city has become, or is becoming, its own miniature police state where the local government can do whatever it wants, regardless of the rights of its citizens.

Remember, as Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Facebook