Is the Patriot Act Constitutional
In the aftermath of September 11, Congress was eager to put laws on the books to prevent another attack. In an unprecedented spirit of bipartisan patriotism, a law was passed in the House by 357 to 66 (Clerk of the House) and in the Senate by 98 to 1 (Secretary of the Senate). The title of the act, USA PATRIOT Act, is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Since its historic passage there has been much debate on the constitutionality of the act. Some would claim the Legislative and Executive branches acted opportunistically and enacted a law that infringes on the rights of Americans. This paper, for sake of brevity, focuses on Section 213 of the Patriot Act, the “sneak and peak” section. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the arguments on both sides of the issues and determine whether or not Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act is indeed unconstitutional. This paper examines the history of the Patriot Act, evaluates recent litigation concerning this act, and considers precedents that would give or withhold from Congress the authority to enact such a law.
This first section provides a brief explanation of the history of the Patriot Act. A common misconception about the Patriot Act is that it takes away personal liberty and is an unprecedented power grab by the federal government. What most people do not realize is that the Patriot Act, for the most part, only amends and updates current law, as opposed to creating entirely new laws. In his remarks on the Senate floor while pushing for passage of this act, Senator Patrick Leahy acknowledged that some of the amendments presented for consideration may have been unconstitutional. Leahy said, “After that terrible day of September 11, we began looking at our laws, and what we might do. Fortunately for the country . . . we took time to look at it, we took time to read it, and we took time to remove those parts that were
This first section provides a brief explanation of the history of the Patriot Act. A common misconception about the Patriot Act is that it takes away personal liberty and is an unprecedented power grab by the federal government. What most people do not realize is that the Patriot Act, for the most part, only amends and updates current law, as opposed to creating entirely new laws. In his remarks on the Senate floor while pushing for passage of this act, Senator Patrick Leahy acknowledged that some of the amendments presented for consideration may have been unconstitutional. Leahy said, “After that terrible day of September 11, we began looking at our laws, and what we might do. Fortunately for the country . . . we took time to look at it, we took time to read it, and we took time to remove those parts that were
References: Cox, Arthur M. The Myths of National Security: the Peril of Secret Government. Boston: Beacon, 1975. Print. Farrier, Jasmine. "The Patriot Act 's Institutional Story: More Evidence of Congressional Ambivalence." PS: Political Science and Politics 40.1 (2007): 93-97. JSTOR. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. . Fed. R. Crim. P. 41. (2011). Leahy, Patrick. "Support for the USA PATRIOT Act." Washington, DC. Senate Floor. 25 Oct. 2001. Mac Donald, Heather. "Straight Talk on Homeland Security by Heather Mac Donald, City Journal Summer 2003." City Journal Summer (2003). City Journal. Manhattan Institute, Summer 2003. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. . McKenna, George, and Stanley Feingold. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Political Issues. Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill, 2007. Print. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997). Rubel, Alan. "Privacy and the USA Patriot Act: Rights, the Value of Right, and Autonomy." Law and Philosophy 26.2 (2007): 119-59. JSTOR. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. . Scott, Gregory M., and Loren Gatch. 21 Debated Issues in American Politics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000. Print. USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56). U.S. Code. Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure. (2001). United States v. Dalia, 441 U.S . 238 (1979). United States v. Freitas, 800 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1986). United States House of Representatives. “U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 1st Session.” House.gov. 25 Oct. 2001. United States v. Mark L. Simons 206 F. 3d 392 (4th Cir., 2000). United States v. Nicholson 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). United States Senate. "U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 1st Session."Senate.gov. 25 Oct. 2001. United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995).