I didn't say I think the Patriot Act is or isn't unconstitutional. For the record, I think it is clearly unconstitutional.
What I was wondering is why all of a sudden we are concerned with a high profile legislation that does not undermine any of our rights that have not already been taken from us in the form of legislation.
People's main siren song with the Patriot Act seems ot focus on the idea of being "monitored". This, in and of itself, is not unconstitutional. There must be some form of monitoring if there is to be a government at all.
Ulter, I know you're pointing out the rulings to me to play Devil's advocate -- I am certain that you know that I cannot endorse the Patrioit Act as drafted (I think I've alluded to why on AF some time ago). I will allow you to yank my chain because you are so old...
Here's the point: The rights to privacy that George has implied are being taken from us by the Patriot Act were already gone. Simple as that. And when we start talking about what is and isn't Constitutional...whew. The vast VAST majority of legislation on the books is clearly unconstitutional. After all, Congress was never granted the authority to govern what we put in our bodies to begin with, as defined by the initial limits and bounds of power of Congress and legislation.
Interestingly, those who call themselves liberal, or Democrats, don't realize that they are actually touting a conservative philosophy. If you believe in a right to privacy, a small government that leaves you alone, and the right to keep the money you earn as well as the right to decide how to spend that money, well...guess what? You are a conservative.
The term conservative does not apply, as many people seem to think, to the difinition of rules of behavior (strictly governed = conservative and loosely governed = liberal). It merely reflects one's attitude toward how strictly the Constitution must be adhered to. If you are crying out for the Patriot Act to adhere strictly tot the Constitution, then why is Roe vs. Wade allowed under the radar screen in the same so called philosophy of freedom and equality? Both are violations of the same thing: Sovereignty of the individual human.
Roe vs. Wade is such a good example because it represents government sleight of hand at its finest. Social engineering is easily accomplished when everyone is angry, scared, or hungry. And war is the mechanism that ensures those conditions in perpetuity.
So yes, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. I know that, but more importantly, I understand EXACTLY why it is. I see people knocking the decisions made by others who have to protect this society, this nation, etc. This is a great, if not the greatest, aspect of a free country -- the right to dissent. It yields discussions of alternatives and ulimately gives rise to the better way.
But let us not forget what the Patriot Act is:
It is an amalgamation of so called Democratic principles, supported primarily by the left side of the political fence many years prior to now, and finally bookended and put under a microscope while a "Republican" is in office. Bush is a Democrat. He calls himself something else, but his choices are democratic in tradition, with the few military exceptions.
Mr. Spellwin --
As to the identity/credit theft issue...yes, this is an incident that is a result of gross mismanagement of power. But not in the way generally believed. Think of it this way:
We (government, that is) can either monitor online data or we cannot. If we cannot, then we have given complete sovereignty to an entire society, without any governing whatsoever. Is this bad? Maybe.
I think the question is not whether or not we should be monitored. The question is whether or not we should be punished for how we behave in private. Ulimately, this is the essential dividing political question. After all, the radical right is trying to legislate morality all the time. This is the WORST decision engine to utilize, because moraltiy is subjective.
What do I think the solution is? Simply enforce the constitution in its present form and see where that gets us for starters. Is it a perfect document? No. But the entire POINT o f a two party system is...surprise, GRIDLOCK. Of what? Government. Why? To prevent the government from ever becoming more powerful than the nation that it governs. Thomas Jefferson understood this. He was, in my way of thinking, the greatest political mind in history. Other good studies include Marx's writings, (yes, we must study communism in order to understand why it won't work) and Communism, by the way, has NEVER been tried on this globe as Marx described it...to the studies of Bastiat, who had a remarkable grasp on the intrinsic flaws of socialist philosophy. Julious Huxley wrote a book that practically predicted what is happening now. So did Buckminster Fuller. They knew that the legislation of morality, be it in the form of patriotism, religion, or any other collective moral imperative, is ALWAYS bad. What we should watch out for now is the sluggish inertia toward socialism that will render this country absolutely powerless to defend itself, not only because its citizens are divided, but because they are uneducated, lazy, feel a sense of entitlement, and do not recognize that money is not wealth, but rather, productivity is. And the right to produce is what is being taken away, piece by piece, by boths sides of the government, because both party philosophies, taken to their respective extremes, result in the same thing: A Dictatorship. And this, people, is why there are two parties. Arguing beats subjugation. I suppose that I could be called an objectivist, but I don;t really try to label my political stance any more. Suffice it to say that I understand political theory, practice, and some history.
I am not a genius, though.
I'm just a lean guy who can do a lot of pull ups or a lot of talking, depending on the situation.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
