The USA Patriot Act violated the United States Constitution
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
1. A forfeit is a loss.
2. Pro has Burden of Proof.
3. Definitions must be provided in the first round. If a side doesn't provide a definition for something and the other side does, the definition provided is assumed accepted.
4. No new arguments in the last round.
5. No kritiks.
Decide other rules with theory
Patriot Act/United States Patriot Act/US Patriot Act/USA Patriot Act: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001
Other definitions are to be provided during the first round
- As defined by the Oxford dictionary, violate means:
break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement).
- The United States constitution is the supreme law of the United States, which was created during 1787
- SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
- SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.
- SEC. 218. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION
- SEC. 412. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS
- The 1st amendment,
- The 4th amendment,
- The 5th amendment,
- the 6th amendment
- And the 8th amendment
- It violates the 4th amendment. The fourth amendment requires a warrant for search and seizure, this requires no warrant.
- It violates the 1st amendment. The section says the investigation must be “not conducted SOLELY upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment”; it does not say it cannot be partially based on activities protected by the first amendment. The first amendment protects freedom of speech, but this section threatens to take that away. The document goes on to further state “no person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things) that the FBI has sought or obtained tangible things under this section” this further violates the first amendment by forcing the persons necessary to produce the tangible things to not speak of it. This brings up another problem, if it is say, a doctor that is forced to produce the records of patients, patients couldn’t even defend their rights as they would have no knowledge of the search and seizure
- In essence, this is a constitutional law debate, where we make relevant pertaining arguments to establish or deliberate upon the constitutionality of differing provisions within the patriot act.
- The fourth amendment reads as follows: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Pro's argument is simply erroneous. Delayed Notice Warrants are search warrants issued upon probable cause, simply implicated with a deterred notice to the individual to whom the warrant pertains.
- Nowhere in the fourth amendment does it state that an individual must be notified of every warrant that exists. In fact, the fourth amendment does not even require a search warrant for all cases. The unreasonable clause entails exceptions for cases in which the law deems a warrantless search reasonable.
This section allows police to search at their discretion.
- As expressed above, completely false. Law enforcement agencies must still acquire a warrant, but in this case, they have simply delayed notice to the subject of said criminal investigation etc. This does not violate any aspect of the fourth amendment.
It violates the 4th amendment...
- We have already explored the implications of pro's false allegation in contention one. Observe the fourth amendment once again. The fourth amendment does not require warrants in all cases, but merely in the category of "unreasonable searches." This leaves us with the prospect of reasonable searches/seizures, that are not only compatible but compliant with the fourth amendment as consistently ruled by the Supreme Court. In summation "the Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law." How does this violate the 4th amendment? Pro says:
This requires no warrant.
- This is false, court orders are warrants; and in this case, all the determining factors that stipulate this apply. On pro's own grounds this does not violate any amendment.
- Even if a warrant were not present, warrants are not necessary for reasonable searches and seizures like Supreme Court has held for articulable/reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc, all of which apply to an active terrorist investigation. This does not violate the 4th amendment.
It violates the 1st amendment.
- The first amendment stipulates that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Pro here conflates different amendments, seemingly in an incongruent or inapplicable fashion. The patriot act makes no statute that prevents free expression. It additionally does not acquire such material nor commence investigation on the basis of the amendment protected.
it does not say it cannot be partially based on activities protected by the first amendment.
- The stipulations are clear, orders are only valid in "an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities" In the case of such impending investigation for acts of terror, it does not matter if any other activity is implicated in this. If I post "Americans are pigs," on social media waving a terrorist flag this is protected. If an anonymous tip is given that I have purchased several high-power weapons and have made plans to attack an area, this becomes the object of investigation. Even if the previous post is acquired in the process of investigation it is not relevant to the latter imperative of investigation as the court order warrant will give relevant permission to investigate the perceived attack. This is more reasonable and perhaps more justified.
- Cumulatively, even besides all this pro, has not made a case that any part of this violates the first amendment besides vague implications that have been thoroughly refuted.
- Pro gripes with the amendatory wording of section 218. He does not make an argument in my view, as to how this specifically violates the fourth amendment which we have already established does not protect people from reasonable searches.
"violates the fourth amendment"
- Well, let's get more into this.
- Section 215 requires "the government must obtain a Section 215 order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court)." Pro himself admits that FISA was constitutional and that his only objection is to the clause "significant," in the patriot act. However, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review reviewed the provisions and found that the clause pro clings to was not required even before the amendment of the patriot act. Further, "the court expressly held "that FISA, as amended, is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable." These amendments are constitutionally consistent with the previous rules, but upon review, have been upheld as proper in spite of them due to their inefficient and uncordinnative standards in the interaction with intelligence and law enforcement.
- Pro's allegations here seem to be simply inaccurate. For one "section 412 expressly grants aliens the right to challenge their detention in court. Aliens may file a habeas petition in any federal district court that has jurisdiction." This alone dispels all of the proposed amendment-concerned violations. Secondly, section 412 simply allows the detention of terrorist aliens for the duration of their removal proceedings. The Supreme Court has already ruled that "[d]etention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process because such detention is generally shorter in duration, and serves the purpose of preventing criminal aliens from absconding during their proceedings," which effectively deals with the 8th amendment.
- My job is to simply refute pro's arguments where he alleges the unconstitutionality of certain provisions in the US Patriot Act. Thus far, I have shown that nothing mentioned is incongruent with an aspect of the constitution, procedurally, or empoweringly. The voting seems simple from now, the resolution defaults to con, and if you are not sure/convinced, either way, the vote still goes towards the contender, given that pro does not deny his burden of proof.
- Normally, I have no issue with forfeits and if my opponent were to forfeit 3/4 rounds I would simply use it as an advantage to my argument. However, my opponent took the liberty to make the rules, clearly to get a win over someone who may not have had enough time to cover the parameters of the engagement in one round.
- Rule one states clearly:
1. A forfeit is a loss.
- As I have now won this debate, my amusement extends to the comment section in which misguided people assert that the resolution is an "objective fact." Conversely, I maintain that the patriot act is pretty obviously constitutional, and I hope my argumentation showcases this.