Hey, if you want to pull strict originalism, fine. But you're not going to have too much company, judicial or political. Nor does my poor wording obscure the fact that we have a right to be secure from unreasonable, non-sanctioned searches. That's not a penumbra "privacy" right, and i should have ommited that from my explanation. But that mistake aside, you're ignoring the meaning of the 4th ammendment...which is not "made up." See Mapp v. Ohio for details.
The first ammendment covers the press. And that's not silly. Nixon v. NY Times has all the details of why.
As for finding specific provisions...i'm not going to. The text of the bill is mostly revisions of previous bills...and i'm not going to sit around with a highligher figuring out all the cross references, and dealing with this:
Quote:
Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that subparagraph), by striking `; and' and inserting a comma and the following:
`by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by inserting `, block during the pendency of an investigation' after `investigate'; and
(ii) by striking `interest;' and inserting `interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and';
(C) by striking `by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States`; and
|
Sorry, but we're going to have this debate over the analysis of others, not primary research. I'm not qualified to figure out all these things on my own...and i won't pretend to. But all the things i have talked about have been referenced int eh mainstream press as consequences of the patriot act, and related legistlation.