Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
the patriot act protects americans civil liberties
does the patriot act infringe on civil rights
approaches to statutory interpretation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the patriot act protects americans civil liberties
Citizens of any country are given some rights as well as responsibilities, and the United States of America is no exception. The Constitution (US Const) of the USA as well as the first ten amendments, also known as “Bill of Rights”, defines the framework of it. It is a supreme law that defines how Federal Government works. Shortly after the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks, the US congress enacted a law, commonly known as The Patriot Act. This law enlarges the power of government and administration allowing them to obtain the personal records of any person of suspect in hopes of preventing any future terrorist act. Many of its provisions were going to expire in 2005, but Congress passed another bill named “US PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act in 2006” to reauthorize those. The Patriot Act technically doesn’t violate any constitutional right. However there are lots of gray areas where its interpretation are not only different but questionable. Even more some individual may overstep the fine line between the rights and responsibilities they have. Although the main purpose of this act is to maintain the safety of its citizens, residents and visitors, a debated soon started weather it violates Constitutional rights or not. The Constitution not only gives some rights to citizens, but also protects them. However, several lawyers are worried about the abuse of power by this act and violate the “Bill of Rights” and specifically the 4th amendment of the Constitution. Supporters of this act claim that most of the changes suggested by “The Patriot Act” are not new offers, only modest changes to the existing law. For example; interference with an airline crew has been illegal since Kennedy was President (Sales, Nathan A... ... middle of paper ... ...efAuxArt.aspx?refid=701713501> Gerdes Louise I. “The Patriot Act”: Detroit: Thomson Galem, 2005 Yoo, John C. “The Patriot Act Is Constitutional”. Encarta. July 10th 2009 < http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefAuxArt.aspx?refid=701713501> Preston, Julia. “Lawsuit Filed in Support of Muslim Scholar Barred From US.” New York Times. Jan 26th 2006: A18 Sales, Nathan A. “The Patriot Act isn’t broken.” March 6th 2009, Vol. 101 Issue 69, Student Research Center. EBSCOhost. Frederick Community Coll. Lib, Frederick, MD July 10th Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. Pub. L. 107-56. 26 October 2001 USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005. Pub. L. 109-177. 9 March 2006
The Patriot Act violates many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment, for example, gives American citizens freedom of speech, press, and religion. The Patriot Act allows the government to monitor the religious and political papers and institutions of citizens that are not even reasonable suspects for criminal activity. Church,
After the horrendous terrorist attack on the New York Trade Center a new Bill was passed by congress shortly after September 11, 2004. This bill is known as The Domestic Security Enhancement Act also called Patriot Act 2. This bill was designed as a follow-up to the USA Patriot Act to work in increasing government surveillance, detention and other law enforcement powers while reducing basic checks and balances on such powers. By the beginning of the year 2003 a draft of the legislation was available. Amongst the most severe problems the bill diminishes personal privacy by removing checks on government power, diminishes public accountability by increasing government secrecy, and diminishes corporate accountability under the pretext of fighting terrorism. Also the bill undermines fundamental constitutional rights of Americans under overboard definitions of “terrorism” and “terrorist organization” or under a terrorism pretext. Furthermore, unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism. (http://www.aclu.org/Safeand Free/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206)
Since the terrorist attacks at Sept. 11, 2001, the surveillance issue often has turned away the table in the debate of individual privacy or counterterrorism. By passing the Patriot Act, Congress gave President Bush an immense law enforcement authority to boost U.S's counterterrorism, and the President used his enlarged powers to forward specific programs in order to reduce the threat of terrorism and defend the country’s safety.
“Many opponents have come to see the patriot act as a violation of the fourth amendment to the U. S constitution.” (Belanger, Newton 2). The side effect of the patriot act is that it weakens many rights. This act weakens the fourth amendment which is our privacy protection. The fourth amendment allows citizens to be protected from unreasonable searches without a warrant. The police search suspects mainly because of their race or ethnic group.
The Patriot Act Pros and Cons is a topic that is much like a double-edged sword. On one hand many people feel they would like to be protected and feel that they will give up some ...
These types of montitoring have a good side and a bad side. The Patriot Act is an Act of Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2001 after 9/11. Its backronym, U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T., which stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.
Losely, Lauren E. �Universities Express Concern About the USA Patriot Act.� Academe Sep/Oct 2004: 4. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOHost. GALILEO. Odum Lib., Valdosta State University, GA. 10 April 2005 .
"The USA Patriot Act: What's so Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights?" 12
Since September 11, 2001 many people can say that America has changed. Many people question if America has changed for the better or has it just gotten worse. Since the day those four planes crashed around the United States people’s lives have been changed. Many may not realize how their lives have changed, but with new laws passed life is different within America. The United States Patriot Act is one of the laws passed after 9/11: singed into order on October 26, 2001 just 45 days after the attack. The United States Patriot Act was put in place in order to protect Americans, yet has been affecting American’s civil liberties and caused controversy all over the United States.
After the horrific incident on September 9, 2001, the Patriot Act was passed to help “reduce” terrorist attacks, but they have only restricted us from our rights and feeling free. Regardless of whether we have anything to hide, we deserve to feel comfortable in our own homes. They can even hack into our TVs and cameras! This is unacceptable! We have been dealing with the violation of our privacy due the Patriot Act, but this act led to the abuse of governments’ power, violation of our natural rights, and the government has been going through our texts, internet history, social media, which is breaching into the laws of the constitution.
When one hears the words National Security and Privacy together the terms Snowden, NSA, and Patriot Act are often at the forefront of any discussions. It has become common knowledge that the way the United States deals with national security has changed. Since the implication of the Patriot Act in 2001, the way that the United States has dealt with security and antiterrorism issues has created a never ending fight with civil liberty groups regarding such laws being constitutional or not. Those civil liberty groups argue that such laws infringe upon the fourth amendment, imposing unwarranted searches on civilians who have shown no probable cause to endure such invasion. But the question remains: what is considered probable cause? While
The USA Patriot Act came about after 9/11. The Act remains in use today with some slight modifications. On the other hand, FISA has been in use since the mid-1970s. Both Acts are highly controversial and are foreign to the average citizen. National security always requires a balancing act between freedom and security. As the saying goes, freedom is not free. This paper will describe the primary elements and / or components of the USA Patriot Act and FISA and research how the media has conveyed the main messages and elements of both acts. It will go on to discuss the media portrayal and general public perception of these acts. The paper will close with a discussion based on whether I believe the nation is more secure with these acts in place.
Citizens feeling protected in their own nation is a crucial factor for the development and advancement of that nation. The United States’ government has been able to provide this service for a small tax and for the most part it is money well spent. Due to events leading up to the terrifying attacks on September 11, 2001 and following these attacks, the Unites States’ government has begun enacting certain laws and regulations that ensure the safety of its citizens. From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 to the most recent National Security Agency scandal, the government has attempted and for the most part succeeded in keeping domestic safety under control. Making sure that the balance between obtaining enough intelligence to protect the safety of the nation and the preservation of basic human rights is not extremely skewed, Congress has set forth requisites in FISA which aim to balance the conflicting goals of privacy and security; but the timeline preceding this act has been anything but honorable for the United States government.
Strickland, Lee. "Without Civil Liberties Homeland Security Will Fall." University of Maryland. N.p., 23 Dec. 2005. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. .
"USA PATRIOT Act of 2001." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Shirelle Phelps and Jeffrey Lehman. 2nd ed. Vol. 10. Detroit: Gale, 2005. 183-185. U.S. History in Context. Web. 13 Feb. 2014.