‘A’ part? I cite the ‘law’ as a WHOLE; as in WHOLLY unconstitutional. Take your pick on any number of OTHERS as well, it falls within the same.
‘Violate Federal Law’. What DOESN’T these days?? Sure doesn’t stop ‘em for giving out bennies/SS/work-visas for known ILLEGALS; or importing the same to distribute around the Country (how many children DIED because they bused in these 3rd world ‘bug factories’; measles, etc.). How about Nasan (sp?) and Ft. Hood, or Boston.
The ONLY terrorism (shoe bomber, etc.), IIRC, was stopped by average/everyday citizens .
The IRS is setup to ONLY enforce the tax laws...they’d NEVER be partisan against any ‘group’ like, say, the Tea Party.
Nor was the FCC specifically authorized to take over the internet for ‘fairness’, or the EPA for ‘all navigable waterways’
The income tax was ‘only’ for the ‘rich’...NEVER for the ‘middle-class’
SS/lock-box...you need other examples still?
And I'm sure you have a reasonable, logical legal argument that will demonstrate that, eh?
‘Violate Federal Law’. What DOESN’T these days??
When I was listening to that retard Rand Paul a little bit in clips I've seen on the senate floor, I had noticed that he wasn't talking about what the law actually does, but how the government might violate it. It was a whole bunch of "the government always oversteps! Once it receives power it takes more!" blah blah blah.
But then that got me thinking: If the government has to violate the law in order to abuse it, then what's special about the law? Can't they violate the law even without the Patriot Act?