The document discusses the Patriot Act and its expansion of law enforcement and government powers after 9/11. It provides the example of how the loose definition of terrorism in the Patriot Act allows authorities to pursue individuals for regular criminal activities if deemed potential terrorism. However, this has led to abuse of power and violations of civil liberties. The document also discusses how the Patriot Act allows searches of homes and businesses without warrants, which infringes on 4th Amendment rights. While intended to help detect terrorists, the Patriot Act is criticized for worsening civil liberties.

1. Below is the responces and attached the assignment thanks
Discusion 1
Larturo :
The Patriot Act is similar to our previous discussion on Judicial
Review in one simple way- is grants too much power, and power
without limitation. The Patriot Act supplies a very loose
definition of terrorism. According to the American Civil
Liberties Union, Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L.
No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover
""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism... "A person
engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to
human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or
the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i)
intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the
policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to
affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,
assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States and if they do not, may be regarded as international
terrorism." Simply put, our law enforcement agencies are
granted the right to pursue individuals for criminal activity if it
is deemed a potential act of terrorism. This has translated to
quite an abuse of power of the years. Many would argue that
this act has given law enforcement officials the legislation
needed to pursue individuals for "regular" criminal activity that
they otherwise do not possess enough evidence for, among other
questionable legal activities. While I believe that the Pat Act
was well intended, it has certainly proven to put a lot of
individual rights in question. How far should our law makers be
able to go to defend our land and protect our country, yet
violate and deter the rights of individuals? And, at what cost?
ACLU, 2015.

2. Top ten abuses of power since 9/11.
Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/top-ten-abuses-power-911.
Lorena :
The Patriot Act was established to help the government to
detect terrorists and terrorist activity. The Patriot Act grants the
government and the law enforcement more power than what they
already have. “Congress enacted the Patriot Act by
overwhelming, bipartisan margins, arming law enforcement with
new tools to detect and prevent terrorism” (The USA Patriot
Act, N.D).
The Patriot Act does infringe on civil rights and liberties when
the government thinks an individual might be affiliated with
terrorist activities. This is violates the Fourth Amendment,
which is supposed to “protect individuals “in their persons”,
homes, documents, etc. against unreasonable searches and
seizures without the issuance of a warrant and probable cause”
(Khalil, 2005). The Patriot Act allows law enforcement to
search a home or a business without a search warrant or
permission from the owner. It allows the FBI to search
telephone records, email records, and financial records without
the consent of the owner or court order”(Limeberry, 2008). The
Patriot Act does much to damage the Constitution and violate
the rights of immigrants and American citizens. Shouldn’t there
be probable cause of criminal activity before a search or seizure
can be made? According to the Patriot Act, it seems that there is
no need for any probable cause to be determined. Once the FBI
determines a “type of terrorist criminal activity”, whether of
terrorist form or not, they can search a home and seize anything
in it. Granted, The Patriot Act may have made it easier for law
enforcement to detect terrorist activity, but it is also worsening
our civil rights and liberties.
Discusion 2
Jeremy Johnson

3. The
Court
signaled
a
retreat
of
sorts
in
Gonzales
v.
Raich
(2005).
In
Raich
,
the
Court
upheld
Congress's
power
to
prohibit
growing
or
possessing
marijuana
for
any
reason.
It
ruled,
by

4. a
6–3
margin,
that
the
California
Compassionate
Use
Act
of
1996,
which
permitted
California
residents
to
grow
and
use
marijuana
for
medical
purposes,
did
not
supersede
congressional
law.
To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain
and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the
recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal
prosecution or sanction.
Though medical marijuana was legalized and accepted by the
majority of California voters, Proposition 215 does not
supersede federal law. Marijuana is still illegal under federal

5. law which causes a conflict between the state and the U.S.
Government.
Since
Raich
,
the
Court
has
found
only
one
other
federal
law
to
violate
the
Commerce
Clause,
the
Patient
Protection
and
Affordable
Care
Act
of
2010
(ACA),
the
ambitious
federal
health
care
law
signed

6. into
law
by
President
Barack
Obama.
But,
as
will
be
discussed
in
the
next
section,
the
Court
upheld
the
ACA
as
a
legitimate
exercise
of
the
taxing
and
spending
power
of
Congress.
Whether
the
Court
has

7. charted
a
clear
path
one
way
or
the
other
on
congressional
power
to
promote
social
policy
through
the
Commerce
Clause
is,
at
this
point,
up
in
the
air.
JORY :
Under the Commerce Clause, the Controlled Substances Act
give the federal government the right to intervene in any sales
or possession of marijuana. Marijuana is still classified as a
schedule 1 drug. Drugs including marijuana under this

8. schedule are deemed illegal by the federal government. States
like California and Colorado have deemed marijuana legal for
personal recreational and medicinal use. These States may
allow this type of activity, however the federal government may
also intervene in these issues. One such instance would be the
case of Gonzales vs Raich. A recent essay released by the
University of Missouri Kansas City explains the details of this
case. Essentially in this case Angel Raich and Diane Monson
cultivate and use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Their use
is regulated by board certified practitioners who deem the use
necessary for controlling their symptoms. According to the
essay, “on August 15, 2002, county deputy sheriffs and agents
from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) came
to Monson's home. After a thorough investigation, the county
officials concluded that her use of marijuana was entirely lawful
as a matter of California law. Nevertheless, after a 3-hour
standoff, the federal agents seized and destroyed all six of her
cannabis plants.” (UMKC, 2005) While the confiscation of the
marijuana plants being used for a valid reason may be
morally corrupt in the eyes of some, legally the action
was justified under the Controlled Substances Act. (UMKC,
2005) Political issues that arise from this case are questions
regarding the power and control of the federal government over
state governments. The Supremacy Clause gives the United
States Constitution, and the federal government the supreme law
of the land. Although the Commerce Clause and Controlled
Substance Act protects the nation from illegal drug distribution,
black market crime, drug manufacturing, and sales, it can also
cause controversy regarding personal liberties within various
states. Legally the federal government can control any
production of food and goods if it is deemed that by doing so,
the economy is affected in any manner. (Ivers, 2013)