The Patriot Act? Unconstitutional? No, never

[wasteofo2]

Unless you're a judge that is...

"Responding to the latest court ruling against the act, Mr Ashcroft said, 'We believe the act to be completely consistent with the US constitution.'

New York District Judge Victor Marrero said on Wednesday that the act violated the constitution by allowing federal investigators to gather telephone and internet records from private companies and then prevent those companies from revealing that they disclosed this information about their customers.

He said the act also violates the constitution's Fourth Amendment by preventing any legal challenge to such surveillance.

Judge Marrero acknowledged the government must be empowered to defend national security, but warned that this must not be at the cost of personal security, which is 'especially prized in our system of justice'."
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3703676.stm

The BBC had the most comprehensive story I could find, most others were like less than 100 word blurbs.

I heard on Fox News (Studio B) it was a Federal Judge, and he ruled against the FBI being able to write their own search warrants without consulting a judge, but most other accounts seem to be that it was a New York District Judge, and he ruled against the part about demanding internet/phone records from companies without their consent.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The federal courts are divided into Circuit and Appellate (plus the Supremes, of course). The news story could have meant a Circuit Court judge for the federal district that includes New York (the first? I don't know).

Added in edit: I googled a circuit map; New York is the Second District.

 

[R0man]

The Patriot Act has been a controversial topic since its inception in 2001, with some arguing that it is necessary for national security while others argue that it violates civil liberties. In this case, the court ruling against the act highlights the importance of protecting personal security and privacy, even in the face of national security concerns.

While the former Attorney General John Ashcroft may believe the act to be consistent with the US constitution, it ultimately falls on the judicial branch to interpret and uphold the constitution. In this case, a federal judge has deemed certain provisions of the act to be unconstitutional, specifically regarding the gathering of private information without consent and the prevention of legal challenges to such surveillance.

It is important to strike a balance between national security and personal security, and this ruling serves as a reminder that the government must not overstep its boundaries in the name of protecting the country. The Patriot Act may have been created with good intentions, but it is crucial that it is constantly evaluated and revised to ensure that it is not violating the rights of citizens. As citizens, it is our right and duty to question and challenge laws that may infringe on our constitutional rights.