Is the patriot act, or the National defense authorization act unconstitutional?

The Constitution does not include a pre-qualification clause. That means that any law is considered legal UNTIL the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

By that definition, both laws are Constitutional.

People get too worked up on this "is it constitutional" question. The facts are that what is and what is not constitutional is decided by the Supreme Court by either direct ruling, or failing to decide on a case. Our real "constitution" is found in the millions of pages of Supreme Court decisions handed down over the last 200 years.

As a result of this evolution, our real constitution (known as constitutional law) slowly changes over time. This change over time was fully anticipated by the drafters of the constitution. For example, where does the constitution say that everyone has a right to a court appointed attorney, or that abortion is allowed, or that kids must go to school until they are sixteen, or that we can't say prayers in school, or that you must be 21 to drink.

What happens is human nature kicks in every time there is a law we don't like and we start shouting that the law is unconstitutional. When was the last time Congress "declared war" in accordance with the constitution? Try 1941. Does that mean all the other wars since then have been unconstitutional? Personally, I think so, but the Supreme Court has overruled me every time.

did you read the book or see the movie "1984"? that's what it is. It allows any federal agency to declare an emergency and use the military forces to impose martial law. What they are doing in the mid east (door to door searches without warrants or any due process whatsoever) is only a rehearsal of what they have in store for us here. This is an article I wrote for another section.

Do the police need a warrant to search me or my property? Under aspects of the US Constitution, all persons are protected from unwarranted searches and any other form of arbitrary harassment. Unfortunately modern courts have misinterpreted the intentions of the founding fathers who authored the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to give the police the power at their discretion to use "probable cause." Police should not be allowed to lawfully act on suspicions or whims, and any action against any person should be deemed unconstitutional. This also includes any electronic surveillance such as wiretaps, directional mics, etc. Of course under aspects of the "Patriot Act" they will claim that it is to protect us from terrorists. They also claim that states need to implement a REAL ID program so that sheeple can be digitally mapped for easy identification to once again... protect us from terrorists. Meanwhile, the southern border is wide open to basically let in whoever wants to come for whatever reason.

The fact is this; the enforcement of drug and firearm prohibition has allowed the government to turn this country into a pig powered police state and everyday it is becoming more and more like the USSR. You might like all of this "protection" but personally I prefer to protect myself. If you are the kind of person that wants to give up your liberty for security then please go somewhere else (like China.) Thank you very much. Please email me any comments you might have

It fascinates me how Liberals see the international! Obama has encroached upon the financial industry (banking industry), the motor vehicle industry, and all yet taken over healthcare. He has greater entitlements. And he desires to maintain taxing us and utilising that money to increase his Communist / atheist schedule with extra rules, regs, and rules. What Obama is doing is maximum actual affecting my existence on a on a regular basis foundation! My freedoms are eroding, my money is disappearing, and so on. yet ... you concentration on submit-9/11 legislations that makes it much less stressful for the feds to guard us. sure, in a worst-case difficulty those powers must be abused. no question! yet ... customarily, i might particularly take the risk that we've loosened the leash on government to look at might-be terrorists particularly of working the risk that ... a million. the government is going to tell me what i will and can't consume, how lots i could weigh, a thank you to boost my youngsters, what i will and can't study, or sy 2. the government is going to regulate my faith, making rules to limit the loose exercising thereof 3. the government is going to run healthcare 4. the government is destroying capitalism and changing it with Communistic / Socialistic courses and rules And on.... So, useful, in case you say those courses increase government, i'm going to concede the factor. yet a vote for Romney will ROLL lower back different great government over attain into our lives. So, the internet consequence would be a shrink in government's length and impact.

The Patriot Act has been found by the courts including the US Supreme Court to be constitutional. There is no question that the vast majority of the NDAA is perfectly constitutional and since we don't even have a final version the court has yet to have a chance at ruling on it.

They are.

And THIS is why.

Amendment IV (4): Search and arrest warrants

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V (5): Rights in criminal cases

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Amendment VI (6): Rights to a fair trial

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

http://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-a...

Both are glaring violations of the 4th and 5th amendments, and the Constitutional right to privacy

Evidently not.

People saying they are never explain how - except for a few who misrepresent what's in them.

YES.