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
The patriot act gives the government the ability to punish and deter terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools and for other purposes. Basically the government has the authority to to come in your house take what they want with a warrant… tap your phone lines, so on and so forth... you lose alot of your personal rights.... thanks 6 \/\/ |3 but only if the government can prove probable to 12 sitting judges that you are participating in terror related acts or communication. I is important because patriots fight for our country with goodness of there hearts. They put there personal lives aside and worry about the country's lives. The only reason we are free right now is because of our patriots. On Patriots Day, we should all take the time to celebrate for what they do for us. Lets do something for them. ( Full Answer )
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 ca…ses 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. ( Full Answer )
First of all it didnt contain the bill of rights and oh yeah plus it gave more power to the government and less to the states
Answer . It mandated opening up your house and allowing British troops to make themselves at home.
The anti-federalists believed that the Federalists' plan posed a threat to state governments and to the rights of individuals.
Patriot Act vs, German Enabling Act : The Decrees of 1933 (a) The February 28 Decree. One of the most repressive acts of the new Nazi government, this one allowed for the suspension of civil liberties ....The president was persuaded that the state was in danger and, hence, that the emergency measure…s embodied in the decree were necessary. Under Article 48 of the constitution, the decree would have been withdrawn once the so-called emergency had passed; any hope of this happening was prevented by the establishment of Hitler's dictatorship following the Enabling Act (see below). It was in fact never withdrawn and remained until the end as an instrument of Nazi terror against ordinary citizens who ran foul of the regime. ARTICLE 1: In virtue of paragraph 2, article 48,* of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against communist acts of violence, endangering the state: Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty , on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press , on the right of assembly and the right of association , and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications , and warrants for house-searches , orders for confiscation as well as restrictions on property , are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed. *Article 48 of the German Constitution of August 11, 1919: If public safety and order in Germany are materially disturbed or endangered, the President may take the necessary measures to restore public safety and order, and, if necessary, to intervene with the help of the armed forces. To this end he may temporarily suspend, in whole or in part, the fundamental rights established in Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 ........... Patriot Act : 3.. Section 218 amends the "probable cause" requirement before conducting secret searches or surveillance to obtain evidence of a crime; 4.. Sections 215, 218, 358, and 508 will permit law enforcement authorities to have broad access to sensitive mental health, library, business, financial, and educational records despite the existence of previously adopted state and federal laws which were intended to strengthen the protection of these types of records; 5.. Sections 411 and 412 give the Secretary of State broad powers to designate domestic groups as "terrorist organizations" and the Attorney General power to subject immigrants to indefinite detention or deportation even if no crime has been committed; and 6.. Sections 507 and 508 impose a mandate on state and local public universities who must collect information on students that may be of interest to the Attorney General. ( Full Answer )
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 t…hey 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. ( Full Answer )
One very notable and outspoken opponent of the Indian Removal Act was Davy Crockett. There was also Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, James Madison, OR (emphisis on OR I'm not sure who, but it was one of those three OR this last one) John Marshall. I really hope I helped at least some of you 'cuz i… looked up this question for my open book take home test and Davy Crockett was not one of the choices XP. ( Full Answer )
gave too much power to the states, i think... that's the correct answer.. thanks Learning acedemy!! GO MUSTANGS
It gives the government the right to tap your phone, email, medical records, and yes, the US mail all without a warrant as long as they believe terrorism is involved. It is suppose to expire in May 2011.
they wre afrais that if they would ratify (officialy approve) the constitution that they would lose their independence. *by lori
Anti federalists opposed the constitution because they believed that the state governments should have more power than the national government. They also wanted a bill of rights to be included in the constitution. It is because of the anti federalists that the bill of rights was added to the constit…ution later. ( Full Answer )
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 required to intercept and obstruct terrorism.
The Anti-Federalists were in favor of keeping the Articles of Confederation, perhaps with revisions, believing in the ultimate power of states over a central government such as what is upheld in a confederation. They feared that the Federalists' new government would be too similar to the harsh regim…es of Europe which held great power and thus repressed the people. Anti-Feds were extremely scared of a strong central government and the fact that under the new Constitution, the federal government was more powerful than individual states. They believed this would encroach upon people's liberty. ( Full Answer )
The anti federalists who included patriots such as Patrick Henry certainly were not opposed to America' becoming a prosperous nation nor were they opposed to union. However they did not want to see the individual states lose any of their powers. Patrick Henry queried, " Who authorized them to speak …the language of We the People instead of We the States? " ( Full Answer )
They felt it gave too much power to the federal government and not enough to the states and the people. They feared too strong of a central government like that of England which they had recently escaped from. It did not have a Bill of Rights. . were against increasing the power of the national gov…ernment.. Apex baby~. ;). ( Full Answer )
They opposed it because it was an indirect tax on them. The English would tax the makers of the goods in England, who would then raise the prices of the goods before selling it to the American colonists.
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. ( Full Answer )
they would oppose the US government because they believe in abolishing the government. In other words, they do not want a government.
Was is the past tense, first and third person singular conjugations of be. Were is used for all other persons. . I was . We were . You were . He/She/It was . They were
The anti-federalists objected the constitution because they thoughtit made the central government too strong and feared that the USwould become a monarchy.
No, Antifederalists were those who favored a less centralized national government. SECOND ANSWER: I am not sure of the "position of the Anti-Federalists" on slavery (as if they all held the same view on it; highly unlikely), but whoever posted the first answer is a f*cking idiot. Since when does… supporting a less centralized federal government constitute the support of slavery? If you are going to answer a question, you should stick to answering the question; not trying to classify two different positions as mutually inclusive. ( Full Answer )
it did not give the president enough power Wrong. It gave the Congress and President TOO much power -Anti-Federalists wanted a SMALL government, with limited powers.They were afraid that a big government would trample the rights ofthe individual person, like for example making them take theircloth…es off at the airport, or reading their email without themknowing it,, or tossing them in jail without a trial...Anti-Federalists pushed for the Bill of Rights which gaveindividuals such things as freedom of speech and religion, andprotected them against unreasonable searches and seizures. it granted the cheif executive to much power. ( Full Answer )
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. ( Full Answer )
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 warrant if they believe terrorism is involved or a terrorist act is going to be committed. It is set to expire in May of 2011.
The answer to this question is this.... . They opposed having such a strong central government and thus were against the Constitution.
A Word document is specifically text, in an application purposed to the writing, editing and formating of text. A database can be used to categorize both numbers and text in ways that can then be operated upon to correalte relations and associations. Searching for similar values, from numbers, to a…ddresses, for example, and producing a report showing just those entries that fit the search parameters. Also- Databases can be set up to have one input of information modified or acted upon by other information in an automated way. For example, inputing a price in one field might automatically place the sales tax on that number in an separate field, without your inputing anything but the initial formula when you first created that filed. Ergo, Word is a word processor for the purpose of composing text. A Database is specifically for organizing, correlating, and manipulating information. ( Full Answer )
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.
Granted more powers to some U.S. agencies. Established theDepartment of Homeland Security. Removed rights of ordinary citizens to open even a small bankaccount without ID and extraordinary hoops to jump through.Tightened all banking regulations nationwide. Removed or restricted activities US Citize…ns coulddo--before--without extra effort. For example, no one needed a USpassport to go visit Canada like we need now. ( Full Answer )
His support of his country's struggle for national identity marked him as a true patriot . Any individual who wears a military uniform is, at least in part, a patriot . Only a true patriot would stand up to the oppression of his countrymen. She hated war, but she was a patriot , and she …enlisted in the military to defend her country. ( Full Answer )
Criticism of Patriot Act Many criticize the Patriot Act because they believe it takes away freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and gives too much power to the federal government, especially in the area of the right to privacy.
Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution. He feared that the central government woulds gain too much power. He felt that the Constitution went too far. He also opposed the Constitution because it did not have a bill of rights.
No. It is a horrible collection of panic responses to non-existent problems that violates many of our Constitutional protections.
Personally, I wouldn't have approved. I would have looked down on it. But that's mainly because they would be moving me too. Let me just say, they would have on **** of a time getting my family to go anywhere.
Loyalist forces were adamant about maintaining ties to King George III while the Patriots were determined to oppose the King. Many Patriots ended up as enemies to the crown for their beliefs and actions.
well this is a very complicated question i dont think it will ever be answered knobjockey ... that guy before wot a pris
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.
It's not a simple yes or no answer. Anti-federalists in many states felt that the Constitution needed a bill of rights to protect people's civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion. A bill of rights was a common feature of state constitutions. They opposed ratification without one. Fed…eralists supported ratification regardless of a bill of rights. However, as states began to ratify the Constitution, many anti-Federalists in states like New York, felt pressured to support ratification. New York ratified the constitution by a vote of 30-27. During the first Congress, James Madison introduced a list of 12 amendments to the constitution that reflected many of the recommendations made by Antifederalists at state ratification conventions. The states ratified ten of those amendments in 1791, and they became known collectively as the Bill of Rights. ( Full Answer )
all i can see is the northeast particularly the new england states idk why though.. hope it helps
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 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. ( Full Answer )
Anti-federalists opposed of the Constitution because they felt that it made the national government too strong and left the states too weak. They also thought that the Constitution gave the president too much power.
The stamp act was a revenue raising act and to collect the tax they sold embossed stamps of different values in sheets of paper and sold the paper to the colonists for use as legal documents, newspapers, and pamphlets. No document written on unstamped paper had legal standing, so the colonists were …made to buy the stamps and pay the tax. Because of this the colonists at every level rose in protest and drew up petitions to Parliament. Urban crowds sometimes attacked the men who distributors of the stamps. The people feared the "stamp men" were benefiting from the tax and that the fact it was Parliament enacted the Stamp Act and not the colonial governments leaving no protection for the people concerning taxes and power. As a result they claimed that as British subjects they had the power to tax themselves and because they were not represented in the British government the tax had no power over them. On the other hand the British felt that the government was sovereign over all and had to yield to it's authority. Neither side would budge on this issue. The act was repealed in 1766 after a speech in the House of Commons after a speech by William Pitt the hero of the French and Indian War. Yet, on the same day the Declaratory Act was passed asserting that in "all cases whatever" that Parliament had the right to legislate laws in the colonies. ( Full Answer )
Not completely. President Obama has stated that he believes Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") is unconstitutional. He has not commented publicly on Section 3 which permits states to prohibit recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. On May 9, 2012, he announced that he supports… the legalization of same-sex marriage, presumably in all fifty states. ( Full Answer )
They felt like they were paying for goods that they needed and they couldn't afford.
They worried that the presidency could become a monarchy and that the Congress would become too powerful.
The Intolerable Acts made the American colonists so angry because of the Stamp Act, the Tea Act, and taxes. The British would make their own materials with stamps that on it that approves that it is from the British(they could only buy items from the British). Then the Tea Act in1773. The law allowe…d British merchants to sell tea in the colonies for less money than anyone else. Many colonists saw this as an attempt by the British government to force other tea merchants out of busness. Once the other tea sellers were shut down, the British would raise the prices on their own tea. To the colonists, this was unacceptable. The British government put tax on everything! ( Full Answer )
The patriots who lived in the colonies :) They did it because they didnt wanted to be taxed on paper
The act's provisions that allow the secret "sneak-and-peek" searches. I'm being dead serious that's what my textbook says.
They felt it was creating a strong national government that could deny rights for citizens
The US Patriot Act led to what many consider to be an invasion of privacy. In order for the government to protect the country from terrorists within the country's borders, all fell under scrutiny. This led to many parts of everyday life - internet, phone usage, etc - as possible ways that the people… started to be monitored for questionable actions. - the greatest point here is that there must be probable cause for someone to be monitored... and the question that may arise - does the government recognize that not everyone is to be monitored? Attached is an article that discusses some of the pros and cons of the program. ( Full Answer )