What would you like to do?
Why would anti-federalists be opposed to the us patriot act?
the anti-federalist were scared that all there individual freedoms would be gone.
2 people found this useful
Was this answer useful?
Thanks for the feedback!
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US was concerned that legal obstacles to obtaining vital intelligence would allow similar attacks. Congress passed the Patriot Act to… remove the previous restrictions on obtaining and sharing important information on possible terrorist activities. In many cases this allowed actions by government agencies that would previously have been illegal or even unconstitutional (wiretaps, surveillance, monitoring private transactions, and searching private homes and businesses). All of these activities were deemed necessary to provide increased protection of the US public from terrorist activities.
To protect the citizens of the US and to bring terrorists to justice
Prior to the French and Indian War, British colonists in Americawere not taxed. Taxes were introduced, including the tax on tea,because Great Britain saw the war as being for …the colonies'benefit as well as the mother country, and they should pay theirportion of it. Many colonists objected because they were taxed butstill had no representation in Parliament. The Sons of Liberty werethe ones who protested the Act as taxation without representation. Parliament also passed the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767. Theaverage colonist were not upset about the tea tax since the tax ontea was LOWERED and not made higher. The men who were upsetwere the smugglers of Dutch tea since it made the cost of their tea HIGHER ( Hamlton was one), so they organized the Boston TeaParty. They were hit in their pockets because of this and werepretty mad. Most of the tea was brought to the colonies by the British EastIndia Company. The British East India Company bought tea insouthern Asia, shipped it to the colonies, and then sold it tocolonial tea merchants. The merchants then sold the tea to thecolonists. To make a profit, the merchants sold the tea at a higherprice than they had paid for it. Tea was especially popular around the time the Tea Act of 1773 camein. This act, requiring that Americans purchase tea through theBritish East India company, imposed heavy taxes on the tea - taxesthat weren't being spent on the improvement of the colonies, butrather on unnecessary British troops and on lining the King'spockets. Many colonists were opposed to the Tea Act because it cut outmiddlemen who operated legally while also enforcing more taxes.Those who imported tea illegally were also affected because legaltea prices dropped as a result of the act. The Tea Act of 1773 gave the British East India Tea Company anadvantage over American and Dutch tea Companies. By lowering thecompany's tea tax, it made it so cheap that other tea companieswere unable to compete. Colonists were enraged, especially when aprevious tea tax on tea entering the colonies remained intact whiletea entering England had no duty. The Tea Act made it possible for colonists to pay lower taxes ontea than they had, and the British government was hopeful that itwould be well received. It was not, partly because people who werealready avoiding the existing taxes would have a hard timecontinuing to do so, and partly because merchants would make lessmoney on the tea under the newer tax. Another problem was that thetax was being used to leverage recognition of the Britishparliament's right to impose taxes on the colonists.
The US Patriot Act was formed right after the attack on September 11, 2001. U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by providing appropriate tools r…equired to intercept and obstruct terrorism.
The Patriot Act was enacted officially to allow law enforcement more latitude when investigating terrorist organisations. However, it has been applied much more as a tool to… unconstitutionally subject American citizens to searches, seizures, and investigations without probable cause. According to the ACLU the Patriot Act has been used unconstitutionally on American citizens in 10 times more instances than on foreign or domestic terrorist suspects.
Of the many atrocities this horrendous piece of wholly unpatriotic legislation this Act commits it is the gleeful and unrestrained expansion of "discretionary powers" granted …law enforcement agencies and the inclusion of "domestic terrorism" that has earned this unconstitutional law the criticism it so rightly deserves. This so called law has claimed some kind of legal authority to ignore Constitutional constraints and has "authorized" law enforcement agencies to search everyday peoples homes and properties without any due process of law and even without the knowledge of those who are under investigation. The declaration of the governments right to hold immigrants indefinitely without any due process of law is a blatant disregard for the rule of law and the United States Constitution. Since its unanimous passage by Congress it has all ready been challenged successfully on several levels and many federal courts have ruled several portions of this act as unconstitutional. I am one of the people critical of the Act. The Patriot Act is needed but it goes too far. Instead of beingrestricted to spying on terrorists it permits spying on andinvading the lives of innocent Americans. It isn't focused onpotential terrorists. It has many expansions that had been soughtby federal and state law enforcement authorities long before 9/11,but both liberals and conservatives concerned with individualfreedoms and liberties had always been able to prevent adoption ofthese expansions. Law enforcement always wants more and moreauthority. History repeatedly shows that law enforcement officialsoverstep their existing legal authority and have to be reined in.The Patriot Act gives them far too much leeway, which they willundoubtedly overstep. But, now it will be in secrecy so that theirillegal excesses cannot be known and reined in. And, we know they have done exactly this because some cases havebeen exposed.
Gave U.S. agencies greater powers It gave the government the right to search your home, email, telephone records, medical records, and mail to name a few, all without a war…rant if they believe terrorism is involved or a terrorist act is going to be committed. It is set to expire in May of 2011.
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
It doesn't. Instead of protecting us, it simply is an unconstitutional law that allow the government to bypass the courts and it simply opens the doors for abuse of power.
The US would not be confident with itself or be encouraged improve.
It was meant to, basically, racially profile individuals. If the government thought someone was committing terrorist acts, it made it easier to investigate accusations legally…. In reality, it basically took away our 4th Amendment right.
In Federal Laws
Foremost, the erosion of first and forth amendment rights, is a great concern created by the Patriot Act. Among privacy advocates, the complaint is caused by increased surveil…lance powers. And for most Americans it's alarming to realize that they can be listed as a threat without; being suspected of a crime, armed and dangerous, emotionally disturbed or being considered a terrorist. There have also been increased involvement of the military in ordinary policing, which changes the identity of the United States towards being a Military state. While the Patriot act is vociferously praised by all sections of the United States, there is also emerging evidence that there have been considerable abuses of ordinary citizens under its policies. NOTE: The question posits as fact that there IS something wrong with the Patriot Act. However the Act was passed by both Houses of Congress and signed into law (and re-affirmed) by two successive administrations and, as of Nov '11, it is still in effect and there have been no successful court challenges to its provisions. Therefore, any 'answers' to this question can only be considered as the contributor's OPINIONS and should not to be treated as factual responses to a valid question.