Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
" Prohibiting "a bill of attainder" means that the U.S. Congress cannot pass a law that considers individual or aggregation blameworthy and later discipline them. Disallowing an ex post facto law implies that the U.S. Congress cannot make any given act a crime after the time the act had been committed. It is doubtful that this applies to a few sections of the Patriot Act. Individuals who monitor the Supreme Court are sitting tight for a case to make its direction up so the judges can run on it (Ball, 2008).
The scope of the research of the Patriot Act
This study is based on available online books and journals focusing on this topic. A thorough investigation and research reveal that many of the measures implemented under the U.S. Patriot Act have been broadly affirmed. However, handful experts consider sections in the provisions as unconstitutional. These sections are accepted to go against the rights guaranteed in the first and fourth amendment.
It is not simple to perceive how the U.S. Patriot Act can defile First Amendment rights. However, it is often contended that the new government powers conceded by the gesture could be utilized for religious profiling. The issue is not just hypothetical: some Muslim organizations or individual shave recently been blamed for having connections to terrorists in light of the enactment (Stefoff, 2011). Although religious extremism has been the wellspring of the assaults of September 11, it takes after those religious freedoms could be disabled for security reasons. For instance, the citizens contend that Muslims may be under some investigation after post-September 11 incident. As a result, the Fourth Amendment violations are clear. Since the Fourth Amendment guarantee protection rights for every citizen, it is evident that surveillance powers given by the U.S. Patriot Act could be seen as threats to these rights. In any case, the Fourth Amendment rights make this less evident historically.
Secondly, it has been comprehended that the amendment may ensure private assets or data. In any case, data made public is not recognized protected. In the 1970s, the Supreme Court decided that the alteration offered no security whatsoever for the protection of information endowed to others; subsequently money-related, instructive, or therapeutic records were considered openly accessible with the end goal of criminal investigation (Finan, 2007). For example, the frequency and goal of telephone calls are not recognized private and informative data as such because they are "given" to telephone organizations. In subsequent decisions, the Supreme Court decided that they come to be private just assuming that they can uncover the vicinity and exercises of an individual at home. Statutory law has finished this by making the holders of personal records responsible for the protection of their client. Therefore, majority of the security rights do not arise from the Fourth Amendment but its understanding. The right to private space, which Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called the right to be separated from everyone else, is quite later an understanding. For example, although it is regularly accepted that law enforcement officers should publish themselves to execute a warrant, it is a recent addition to privacy rights.
Chapter Two: Review of Literature
Patriot Act vs. The U.S. constitution
The Patriot Act was created after the 9/11 strike on the World Trade Center, and its principle focus was to protect individuals from terrorism. Explicitly, it permits FBI operators to search private data of individuals, to read their messages, and listen to their private telephone calls. After the Patriot Act was established, the operators were not permitted to carry out investigations of this nature. They might need to have the authorization of a judge.
The Patriot Act breaches the First Amendment, which pronounces our rights to speech, expression, and information. The liberty and freedom of information had a significant effect on citizens in the twentieth century. This permitted them to have their recognitions and inspect scenarios from their perspective. The Fourth Amendment might as well likewise ensure us from seizure and search. The society may also deny the Patriot Act since it raises questionable issues like damaging the Constitution and having an enormous effect on our social lives (Ball, 2008).
These expressions are expressed in the Constitution and must be regarded constantly. Apparently, the Patriot Act maltreats opportunity of discourse in the way that individuals are losing the right to say what and how they verifiably feel. We must be cautious with the utilization of expressions about governmental issues or government because we could be prosecuted. This means that, the Patriot Act disregards the equitable privileges of the flexibility of political outflow. Besides, the Patriot Act looks into what individuals say, which makes them extremely cautious with their vocabulary and the importance of statements they utilize.
Although the legislature cannot deny our rights to respond on certain political issues, the Patriot Act confines what we can say. These essential issues carry the Patriot Act into a clash with our constitutional rights and deny us the right to act freely. The real protection of freedom of expression lies not in the expressions of the First Amendment. Rather, it lies in the individuals' ability to acknowledge and help those rights. The First Amendment distinct freedoms are dependent upon the individuals. They must have the ability to battle for them. The First Amendment underlines extremely vital issues of free expression, free press, and free speech and the Patriot Act in the method for denying individuals the right to act freely upon political issues and government ruins this.
The Patriot Act defiles the Fourth Amendment in each focus, which must be the concern of every citizen because it abused the Constitution by giving elected powers unchecked power to get the private and informative data. The Patriot Act permits the national government to take away the property of a gang terrorist without notice or understanding of the judge, although the individual could be pure. The FBI can pursuit private records within money related foundations, which are our individual reports and might be protected and not sought by law. They can also investigate specified records like restorative, telephone, web, understudy or library records.
The Federal Agents do not have to have or show any explanations that an individual is occupied with criminal or political action to pursuit the individual. The FBI operators do not have to demonstrate any criminal accusations against her/him. Moreover, an individual could be unquestionably sound. The Fourth Amendment delineates and gives us illustrations of the focuses in which The Patriot Act damages human rights against outlandish hunt that are obviously deciphered in the essential law of our state (Stefoff, 2011).
Individuals who differ may contend that The Patriot Act was not intended to damage the protection of individuals but secure them from the terrorism. In a 2005 discourse, President Bush demonstrated that it is to secure the individuals. He illustrated that the Patriot Act is key to ensuring the American individuals against the terrorists. The Act tore down the wall between intelligent officers and law enforcement authorities. The intention was to impart informative content and work together to help counteract terrorists. Its aim was great to start with before creating the Patriot Act. However, when analyzed in genuine living, we see that the Patriot Act does not simply abuse our rights also precludes new thoughts. It gives the right to government authorities to pursuit fiscal explanations, and library, film, and business records of private persons. Additionally, the Patriot Act is in a clash with the most vital controls of the United States, the Constitution.
In conclusion, The Patriot Act does not simply disregard the Constitution; it depicts the loss of our liberties through violating our individual information, freedom of speech and expression as expressed in the First Amendment and the assurance from seizure and search ensured by the Fourth Amendment. Although it might be genuine, it undermines popular government and gives the FBI uncontrolled power to increase intelligence data without satisfactory charges. From these explanations, we might also realize the liberties of U.S. citizens and fight for them (Birkland, 2010).
Patriot Act vs. Other nations
The U.S. Patriot Act gives the U.S. no unique rights to information and downplays contrasts between laws in the U.S. And different nations. In most nations, when the government needs one's private information, they have an approach to get it. Besides, if a Western government needs your information archived on a cloud server in another Western nation, it always has a strategy of getting it. European information archived in the cloud computing systems could be procured and assessed by U.S. law authorization and knowledge organizations. Despite Europe's solid information assurance laws, school scientists have recommended (Ball, 2008).
Evidently, Germany and the U.S. have choked-request procurements that prevent a cloud supplier from specifying how it reveals the information that clients pay handsomely to have it secures. This section of the Patriot gesture damages U.S. cloud suppliers. Any IT security expert might need to know whether his organization's…[continue]
"Patriot Act This Study Seeks" (2013, August 10) Retrieved October 28, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/patriot-act-this-tudy-eeks-94359
"Patriot Act This Study Seeks" 10 August 2013. Web.28 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/patriot-act-this-tudy-eeks-94359>
"Patriot Act This Study Seeks", 10 August 2013, Accessed.28 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/patriot-act-this-tudy-eeks-94359
Patriot Act in Regards to Its Authorization of Surveillance and Search and Seizure The Patriot Act: The Patriot Act was enacted into law in 2001 to unite and strengthen America through the provision of suitable tools that are necessary to interrupt and barricade terrorism acts. This legislation was established with the dignified intention of identifying and indicting international terrorists operating on the United States' soil ("USA Patriot Act," n.d.). The Act, which amended
Patriot Act In response to the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, Congress passed the U.S.A. Patriot Act, an act that gives federal officials more authority to track and intercept communications, for both law enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering purposes (Doyle, 2002). The Patriot Act also gives the Secretary of the Treasury regulatory powers to prevent corruption of U.S. financial institutions for foreign money laundering purposes. The U.S.A. Patriot Act
Political Science The USA Patriot Act Congress passed the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act in response to the terrorists' attacks of September 11, 2001. The Act gives federal officials larger authority to follow and seize communications, both for law enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering reasons. It gives the Secretary of the Treasury with regulatory powers to fight corruption of U.S. financial institutions for foreign money laundering reasons. It seeks to further shut the countries
" (Lindsey, 2004, p.1) it is interesting to note that one of the young protestors stated: "[the world leaders] are sitting over there on Sea Island having their little party only talking about how to fix things, but we are over here actually doing something to make things better" -- Laurel Paget-Seekins (Lindsey, 2004, p. 1) the U.S.A. Patriot Act has been touted to do just this - or to
Sikhs are also mistakenly included since police are unable to detect the difference. (District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia Advisory Committees to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2003) a lot of people are being arrested on very technical immigration infringements of visa, and immigration judges will never let go an individual till the FBI articulates a curiosity in that particular person. For instance, on one occasion a student
Environmental Science In the late 1970s and early 1980s after her son, James Anderson, was diagnosed with leukemia, Anne Anderson discovered that a number of other children in her neighborhood also had the disease. Concerned about what seemed like an unusually high number of leukemia cases, Anderson and other Woburn, Massachusetts families set out to find a possible source of their children's illness. In 1986, personal injury lawyer Jan Schlichtmann and
Moreover, a prosecution of the core leadership of an organization under RICO charges is likely to produce revelations concerning the relationship between leadership and other members who are either guilty of racketeering or some lesser scope of individual crime. This is to say that RICO was essentially designed to push the door open on the activities of such typically obscured enterprises in order to systematically disrupt its initiatives and