Senator Feingold Research Paper

The process being all too eagerly supported by all except the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, Senator Feingold. The almost unanimous support of the Senate gave affirmation to the the American people who were nationally united to face the threat of terrorism. An overwhelming majority voiced support for the legislation Congress drafted and decreed would solve the threat of terrorism at its roots. There was also overwhelming support for both President Bush and the compromise of cherished rights such as protection from unwarranted search and seizure. In the political climate after September 11, the Patriot Act was passed from the House of Representatives and the Senate with an almost unanimous result of 96-1. Senator Feingold was the only Senator to fight against the Patriot Act before it was signed into law. The astounding speed of the enactment is best expressed by Peter Justice, “. . . the climate of fear in the weeks after the September 11 attacks and the haste with which the Patriot Act was passed allowed some of its more controversial

aspects to escape adequate congressional scrutiny” (input fake source)
Senator Feingold gave a resounding answer when asked why he voted against the Patriot Act that pierces the marrow of truth in fighting against terrorism.

Senator Feingold responded that “we will lose that war [on Terrorism] without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.” It is now 2017, but Senator Feingold’s arguments from September and October of 2001 continue to pointedly remind the American people of the negative effects the Patriot Act had on American life and will continue to have moving forward. The heart of Feingold’s stance against the Patriot Act was the counter-productivity of it. The, “government of the people, for the people and by the people,” (Lincoln Online) would essentially trade liberties for security. Liberties the Founding Fathers deemed too innate to individuals to list. What purpose will “security” serve if there are no liberties left to defend? If the

government
What purpose will “security” serve if there are no liberties left to defend? If the Federal government curtails American liberty, then security is rendered worthless. On the Senate Floor, Senator Feingold read a quote by Justice Arthur Goldberg,"While the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact (Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)." Senator Feingold went on to say that these words gave conviction, “ as a challenge to my concerns about civil liberties at such a momentous time in our history; that we must be careful to not take civil liberties so literally that we allow ourselves to be destroyed” (epic). If the federal government jeopardizes the balance of power by illegally crossing into a individual’s private territory, then purpose will the “security” that liberties and lives were given up for serve? If the federal government curtails American liberty, then security is rendered worthless and a mere idea of the past.