The USA Patriot Act (full name:
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) seeks to extend the power of the Executive Branch arguably beyond what is set forth in Article II. The question presented here is whether the Act is in violation of the Constitution, and if so, whether the arguments in favor of the Act outweight the challenges against the Act.
To begin, one must understand what exactly the Patriot Act seeks to accomplish. Signed into law on October 26, 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Act's goal was to expand the ability of US law enforcement to fight against terrorism. In light of the 9/11 attacks, most US citizens were in favor of doing anything necessary to prevent such an attack from occurring again - even if it meant a loss of civil liberties. The public was also willing to place a large portion of it's trust in the President - giving him the right to make decisions that previously required the other branches of government's approval.
Focusing more directly on this latter issue - the President's extention of power - there have been many Constitutional arguments made both for and against the "expansion of executive powers" by virtue of the USA Patriot Act. First a little background: Articles I, II and III of the United State's Consitution outline the duties and responsibilities of the three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial, respectively. Article IV describes the State's powers and limitations. The goal of the first three Articles is to put into place "checks and balances" which ideally give the three branches enough power to properly authorize the branch to proceed as needed to be effective.
Those who criticize the Act say that the Act grants the Executive branch more power than what is allowed pursuant to Article II. For example, the Act:
- Allows the government to access private citizen's credit reports without going through the judicial process (judicial branch),
- Permits searches, wiretaps and surveyence of US citizens on behalf of foreign governments, without having to receive Senate- approved treaties (legislative branch),
- Permits the surveillance of lawful activities of US citizens if they are believed to be gathering information of a foreign power without going through the judicial process (judicial branch).
The criticism is that by giving such power to the Executive branch, the citizens of the US will be placed in a very dangerous situation - where the freedom and liberty we are given in the Constitution will be put in peril. The checks and balances will no longer be in place, and our individual freedom will be put in greaet danger. Many critics also hold that the Act directly violates the Constitution's granting of liberty and freedom to all US citizens, pursuant to:
- The First Amendment (granting freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc.)
- The Fourth Amendment (guarding against unwarranted searches and seizures and gives the right to privacy, etc.)
- The Fifth and Sixth Amendments (granting speedy trials and the right to counsel)
- The 14th Amendment (requiring State's to give due process and equal protection to it's citizens)
Those in favor of the Act have two views: (a) that the criticisms are overstated and that the Act doesn't grant excessive power to the Executive branch, and (b) that the Act is necessary for the safety and welfare of the United States and therefore justifies any Constitutional violations it may be making.
Regarding point (b) above (since point a isn't really addressing the question asked), the argument is that while the Act may expand the Executive branch's powers the expansion is necessary for several reasons. First, the world we live in today is vastly different from what it was when the Consitution was written. Issues such as internet technology and computer crimes were not addressed back then, so creating and passing an Act that does address such crimes is necessary and not in violation of the Constitution. Second, the threat of terror is such that the bypassing of certain check and balances is necessary to expeditely and effectively control terror and the threat of terror. If one was required to go through the normal steps required pursuant to the Constitution, the possibility of a terrorist act being committed would be too high.
SOURCES:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17203leg20030214.htmlhttp://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.phphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Acthttp://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/The-Patriot-Act-Reader.cfmLet me know if you have any questions!
Sincerely
Emily
If you found the advice helpful, please hit ACCEPT. If you are not satisfied PLEASE let me know, or ask additional questions! Thank You! 