What is one of the arguments that some people had against the patriot act?

Answer 1

One argument that people had against the patriot act was loyalists thought they should remain loyal to the king because they didn't want to get their family in trouble or get killed in rebellion actions that the patriots were doing. if its wrong don't judge in im 5th grade.

Answer 2

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 being restricted to spying on terrorists it permits spying on and invading the lives of innocent Americans. It isn't focused on potential terrorists. It has many expansions that had been sought by federal and state law enforcement authorities long before 9/11, but both liberals and conservatives concerned with individual freedoms and liberties had always been able to prevent adoption of these expansions. Law enforcement always wants more and more authority. History repeatedly shows that law enforcement officials overstep their existing legal authority and have to be reined in. The Patriot Act gives them far too much leeway, which they will undoubtedly overstep. But, now it will be in secrecy so that their illegal excesses cannot be known and reined in.

And, we know they have done exactly this because some cases have been exposed.

Answer 3

First and foremost the law is unconstitutional since it is in direct violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution

We were told it was necessary to combat "terrorism" and would be used only against terrorists. Already it is being used against Americans in non-terrorism contexts. (See Elliot Spitzer case). In other words, if the federal government wants the authority to wire tap all of us without prior proof of probable cause the proper and LEGAL method of doing so is via amending the constitution, a necessarily difficult process because the founders knew it should NEVER be easy to make changes to the constitution.

Answer 4

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 surveillance 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 ISsomething 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.

Answer 5

Twofold, generally being in the empire allowed the colonies to be part of one of the biggest closed markets in the world, it offered them the protection of the British navy for trade. Second, no one thought they would win; what could a bunch of farmers do against a professional standing army, that had the finical backing of a 1/3 of the world.