Comments on: Violating your Rights, Then and Now

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:18:27 +0000

Could just have the feds keep them from entering the U.S.A. in the first places and catch them overseas, and let the states handle everything else, of course that would require sharing intelligence among the state Governments, and a rather aggressive immigration and VISA policy, which the politicians in Washington D.C. have been very reluctant to seriously touch.

Dealing with the Immediate problem of the constitutionality of parts of the Patriot act, however should be rather strait-forward with nullification.

It doesn't really matter what the reason is there is no excuse for ignoring the U.S. Constitution period, there is always anther way, if you cant find or uses that other way, that there is your failure.

By: Steve Palmer

Steve Palmer — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:18:12 +0000

I don't oppose the Patriot Act's goals. Catching terrorists and preventing terrorism are obviously good things. However, 1.) One size does not fit all. Money spent in Idaho (for example) under the Patriot Act can't be spent in Philadelphia, a more likely target. There is a hidden cost to trying to blanket the whole country with a single security policy. 2.) It is necessarily true that more money will be lost to bureaucracy and corruption if it is funneled through Washington, DC than if it isn't. The more efficient way to spend money preventing terrorism is for the states to do it. The states also know better than Uncle Sam what their own, unique security needs are.

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:17:50 +0000

I have long been a supporter of the Patriot act, this is clear in the records of my forum post, I did not however know this.

They should be forced to redo the act, and States nullying in practice the legitimacy of such parts of the act on Federal Constitutional grounds might be the best way to do that.

The Federal government may have the responsibility of protecting us from external threats such as international terroist, but they still need to find ways to carry our that resp

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:59:22 +0000

I'm with you there – that way the decisions are based on republican principles – local, self-government – as the founders and ratifiers created for us.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:19:02 +0000

I'm not that opposed to most things in the patriot act (it needs to be
redone to ensure constitutionality) but if a state nullifies it then it
would end it over night and force the federal government to do another one
that is more suitable to the people of all fifty states.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:51:27 +0000

States should nullify it then if they don't want it and enact their own anti-terrorist measures.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:50:22 +0000

I don't oppose all aspects of it and should be redone to ensure
protection against the government.

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:22:14 +0000

Judge Andrew Napolitano calls the patriot act the worst piece of legislation in this country since the Alien and Sedition acts – that was in 1798.

By: Old Rebel

Old Rebel — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:32:52 +0000

It's maddening to hear politicians and pundits who call themselves
"conservatives" — actually Neoconservatives — who claim
terrorists shouldn't receive the rights of Americans.

Long, withering sigh.

That betrays a basic misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights in general, and the 10th
amendment in particular. The Bill of Rights was intended to limit the power of the
Federal government, not to "grant" citizens their basic rights. The
misuse of National Security Letters is a blatant assault on the Bill of Rights.

Since reform is NOT going to come from the District of Corruption, it's time
the people of the States re-asserted their sovereignty and put DC back in its place.

For starters, that is …