Does the patriot act supersede the Constitution?

[ImmortalDragon]

I'd write more but my stomach hurts.

[RedskinzOwnU]

Nothing supercedes the constitution.

[Zguy28]

Nothing supercedes the constitution.

Except a Constitutional Amendment.

[Burgold]

or perhaps a signing statement :doh:

[Zguy28]

J Edgar Hoover probably superseded the Constitution.

[twa]

or perhaps a signing statement :doh:

They do not supersede, but rather demonstrate/apply the Executives interpretation of law.

As the branch entrusted with applying/enforcing laws passed it is certainly not a bad thing for POTUS to publicly declare what they are doing.

Now if they directly go against a ruling by SCOTUS it is another matter.

In the same manner laws passed are subject to SCOTUS review.

[Ax]

Nothing supercedes the constitution.

Except a Constitutional Amendment.

Close thread.

[ImmortalDragon]

Except a Constitutional Amendment.

An amendment just amends the constitution, it can't supersede the constitution because it becomes part of the constitution. But thats just wordplay, does the patriot act not violate various parts of the constitution? If so, why does it supersede the Constitution?

[overhead]

It is up to the Judical branch to decide what law does or does not violate the constitution. So unless a judge decides the patriot act violates our rights protected by the constitution it is left up to the executive branch.

[Duncan]

Except a Constitutional Amendment.

or an activist judge

[Chachie]

or perhaps a signing statement :doh:

Or a tummy ache.

[Predicto]

They do not supersede, but rather demonstrate/apply the Executives interpretation of law.

As the branch entrusted with applying/enforcing laws passed it is certainly not a bad thing for POTUS to publicly declare what they are doing.

Now if they directly go against a ruling by SCOTUS it is another matter.

In the same manner laws passed are subject to SCOTUS review.

Of couse, some issues will never come before the SCOTUS. Including pretty much all national security questions.

[twa]

Of couse, some issues will never come before the SCOTUS. Including pretty much all national security questions.

Must not be a important issue then

Do you think we should set up a court similar to the FISA court to review security questions...or would that be unconstitutional?

[TradeTheBeal!]

It doesn't supercede the constitution, it undermines it.

[Ken]

Nothing supercedes the constitution.

How about Martial Law?

[GibbsFactor]

How about Martial Law?

Martial Law is in the Constitution. Section 1 Article 9. It basically suspends habeas corpus.

Not all of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 is under controversy. It was passed just 45 days after 9-11 and should have been allowed to end, not being signed into law in 2005.

USAPATRIOT act is a very scary relinquishment of liberty that we succumbed to after being terrorized. The very thing the Executive Branch preached the terrorists wanted, they provided. A loss of liberties. Now some will argue the Patriot Act is a necessary tool against terrorism but nothing so mind boggling blatant should ever be passed by our reps. We were betrayed by lawyers in this instance. Our judicial system should have the say as to what we can and cannot do to terrorists that were captured or perused. The language in the document clearly states that you or I can be labeled terrorists. Once that happens, we no longer exist. Would that happen? Has that happened? It's a pretty scary thing when you think about where it could lead. I have no problem finding terrorists, but not by giving up what it means to be American.

[Ken]

Martial Law is in the Constitution. Section 1 Article 9. It basically suspends habeas corpus.

Not all of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 is under controversy. It was passed just 45 days after 9-11 and should have been allowed to end, not being signed into law in 2005.

USAPATRIOT act is a very scary relinquishment of liberty that we succumbed to after being terrorized. The very thing the Executive Branch preached the terrorists wanted, they provided. A loss of liberties. Now some will argue the Patriot Act is a necessary tool against terrorism but nothing so mind boggling blatant should ever be passed by our reps. We were betrayed by lawyers in this instance. Our judicial system should have the say as to what we can and cannot do to terrorists that were captured or perused. The language in the document clearly states that you or I can be labeled terrorists. Once that happens, we no longer exist. Would that happen? Has that happened? It's a pretty scary thing when you think about where it could lead. I have no problem finding terrorists, but not by giving up what it means to be American.

You make it sound so peaceful and tranquil.

You missed this part about Martial Law. And BTW, repealing Habeous Corpus is already done.

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 rescinds these limits by suspending habeas corpus. Since, USNORTHCOM [5] has increased its direct involvement with civilian administration.

The National Guard is an exception, since unless federalized, they are under the control of state governors. [6]. This has now changed. Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122), was signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities. Title V, Subtitle B, Part II, Section 525(a) of the JWDAA of 2007 reads "The [military] Secretary [of the Army, Navy or Air Force] concerned may order a member of a reserve component under the Secretary's jurisdiction to active duty...The training or duty ordered to be performed...may include...support of operations or missions undertaken by the member's unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense." [6] However, a provision in the 2008 defense authorization bill will, if passed, repeal this section of PL 109-364. [7]

Can't forget about Posse Comitatus can we?

[Predicto]

Must not be a important issue then

Do you think we should set up a court similar to the FISA court to review security questions...or would that be unconstitutional?

Not because it is not an important issue. Because the Supreme Court can only decide "controversies" that are properly presented to it. It can't just reach out and Fix something the way Congress and the President can.

The nature of these signing statement issues is such that no justiciable controversy is likely to arise out of them.

[Ken]

Not because it is not an important issue. Because the Supreme Court can only decide "controversies" that are properly presented to it. It can't just reach out and Fix something the way Congress and the President can.

The nature of these signing statement issues is such that no justiciable controversy is likely to arise out of them.

Like this one?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/

[trio]

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

That is the key line from Marbury v. Madison (opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall). That quote is etched in marble in the SCOTUS building when you walk in.

The U.S. Patriot act was passed by the legislative branch, and signed into law by the executive branch, following the manner set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

It, therefore, becomes the law of the land.

It, however, like ALL federal laws, is subordinate to the Constitution.

It also then, by the Marbury power, falls into the purview of the Article III courts to determine whether or not it is ACTUALLY the law (i.e. Constitutional).

But, the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land...it even says so itself

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

– U.S. Constitution, Article VI

(henceforth known as the SUPREMACY clause)

[The_cavalierman]

I am all for protecting America...but the patriot act is not the best way to do it.

[Predicto]

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

That is the key line from Marbury v. Madison (opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall). That quote is etched in marble in the SCOTUS building when you walk in.

The U.S. Patriot act was passed by the legislative branch, and signed into law by the executive branch, following the manner set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

It, therefore, becomes the law of the land.

It, however, like ALL federal laws, is subordinate to the Constitution.

It also then, by the Marbury power, falls into the purview of the Article III courts to determine whether or not it is ACTUALLY the law (i.e. Constitutional).

But, the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land...it even says so itself

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

– U.S. Constitution, Article VI

(henceforth known as the SUPREMACY clause)

All of that is true, but it presumes an appropriate vehicle for reaching the issue.

[Predicto]

Like this one?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/

Exactly. No one has standing to bring a lawsuit challenging what was done here.

[GibbsFactor]

Not because it is not an important issue. Because the Supreme Court can only decide "controversies" that are properly presented to it. It can't just reach out and Fix something the way Congress and the President can.

The nature of these signing statement issues is such that no justiciable controversy is likely to arise out of them.

The Supreme Court has become what the local and state governments should be. Some issues are too divisive for the Supreme Court to handle.

[Predicto]

The Supreme Court has become what the local and state governments should be. Some issues are too divisive for the Supreme Court to handle.

Maybe I misspoke.

It's not that it is too divisive. It is that there is no "case" to decide. Courts only decide cases.