I think there was a thread here the other day asking to prove what part of it was unconstitutional.

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040929/ts_nm/rights_patriot_dc


NEW YORK (Reuters) - Part of the Patriot Act, a central plank of the Bush Administration's war on terror, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on Wednesday.


U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), which challenged the power the FBI (news - web sites) has to demand confidential financial records from companies as part of terrorism investigations.


The ruling was the latest blow to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies.


In June, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled that terror suspects being held in places like Guantanamo Bay can use the American judicial system to challenge their confinement. That ruling was a defeat for the president's assertion of sweeping powers to hold "enemy combatants" indefinitely after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.


The ACLU sued the Department of Justice (news - web sites), arguing that part of the Patriot legislation violated the constitution because it authorizes the FBI to force disclosure of sensitive information without adequate safeguards.


The judge agreed, stating that the provision "effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge."


Under the provision, the FBI did not have to show a judge a compelling need for the records and it did not have to specify any process that would allow a recipient to fight the demand for confidential information.

Good! Now, if we could get a judge to rule that the FBI is unconstitutional, that would be a victory!

Quoted: Good! Now, if we could get a judge to rule that the FBI is unconstitutional, that would be a victory!

You're a genius.