New vote on The PATRIOT Act extension
By HawaiiGopher
@HawaiiGopher (1009)
Belgium
February 11, 2011 3:44am CST
Yesterday at 3 PM, the House voted on "providing for consideration of H.R. 514, to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004." In other words, the House just voted to allow another vote on the act that will require a majority vote.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll029.xml
233 Yeas from the Republicans, 15 from the Democrats. 
1 person likes this
3 responses
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
11 Feb 11
Come on we already had a vote on it and it was a No just because they want to ram through an act that is in direct violation of 4,5 and 6 amendments to the constitution to keep this expanded government where the Feds can violate peoples right to due process and a speedy trial and public trial. This is insane well I guess you can't expect much from the Republicans kinda like the Democrats its okay though the more they mess up the more they give Obama in 2012 well in my case I might have to write my canidate in but this is insane that anyone who loves this country or claims to love this country would support this joke of an Act. I mean really the Patriot Act hasn't made us safer and in fact just proves that we don't deserve our rights. It is a sad day in the United States the longer this "Act" stays on the books.
1 person likes this
@bigal3 (1231)
• Thailand
12 Feb 11
Hi "dark_joev",
I have to say I agree with you though not for all the reasons you point out but we are on the same wave length. I'm 65 years old and I remember over a number of years how the government tried to expand its powers beyond the precepts set forth in the constitution. 9-11 Just gave the government the opportunity to try again to control the public.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
11 Feb 11
I'm glad Republicans insisted on being given time to read the bill and more time to discuss it before letting it get rammed through.
1 person likes this
@bigal3 (1231)
• Thailand
12 Feb 11
I'm not so sure they did. In my opinion I think the U.S. government has to be very careful to not step on any of the normal civil rights provided for in the constitution. It seems to me in some areas they did just that. I understand the country is under attack in various ways and that the government must be careful about security but they must not use that as an excuse to violate the constitutiona rights of the citizens without justified cause. What do you think? @bigal3 (1231)
• Thailand
12 Feb 11
As I understand the "Patriot Act", it was to provide for better security for all U.S. public places etc. It was designed to beef up the nation's security. I also understand it to be somewhat oppressive to individual rights that are set forth in the constitution. I can understand suspending certain civil rights during a time of war but there have been some abuses under that law from what I hear and see on the news from time to time. You will probably say we ARE at war and to some degree, we are but still the public deserves to be treated respectfully. I have seen and heard of some cases where that was not the case.
We live in strange and dangerous times and we should be cautious but let's do it with some fairness and class. As boxing ref. "Joe Cortez" says,"be firm but fair. 
