10/7 threaded

The Magna Carta and the Patriot act are both good acts that were made. Even though they are both different they are both very effective in what they were suppose to accomplish. The Magna Carta limiting the power of a king, which is more suited for the middle ages, when kings ruled, and the Patriot Act suited for today’s form of government.

The Magna Carta was good since it put limitations on King John’s power and rule and it didn’t allow for him to be completely reckless with his power as a king. This is good since it limited him in a small way of not always getting what he personally thought would benefit the kingdom at the particular moment. The Magna Carta made sure the issue got some agreement on the issue before the king could take action to the issue or problem.

Now speaking about a whole different issue, terrorism and deciding whether or not the Patriot Act is a good or bad act is a difficult topic to make a decision on. I personally could come up with some reasons its not a very good act one being that it gives Bush to much power I repeat gives Bush to much power, but I also feel there are some good reasons to have the act. So I guess I am going to have to go with the minority and say the patriot Act is a good act since there are some definite reasons that benefit the nation in having it. One of the reasons or the main reason to have it in my opinion is that it allows things to get done quickly without having to go through the courts before allowing the government to take action on the matter. This is also good since it allows the government to tap phone lines or do what they need to prevent potential terrorist threats and any other threats away before they are executed and potentially causing the deaths of many innocent people. Those are some of the reasons that the Patriot Act is so important.

 I am going to have to agree with what Taylor bird in saying that the Magna Carta was an excellent document that kept King John from gaining too much power. I also agree when she says that the Magna Carta kept the kings from getting to much power. I am even going to agree with her statement in saying that the Patriot Act isn’t an anti-Magna Carta. This is true since it doesn’t give the president unlimited power and simply make him a monarch. I also agree when she says that the main concern seems to be people worried about the government being able to tap into peoples phones and really there lives just because there is suspicion or minor terrorist activities in that area. I also agree when she says that it just gives the president extended power and other agencies the power to tap phone lines, and other forms of information which could be used in terrorism or war. This is an important part of the act since it is how it helps prevent the terrorism and other forms of destruction on the United States. I also agree with her when she says that this is a violation of the citizen’s privacy but like she already said this is just to benefit the people in keeping them safe from the war on terrorism and preventing another major event like 9/11. I am in strong agreement with what she said but I feel there are also some negatives with this since giving the government too much freedom without having to pass laws through the court can create problems since the government may react before realizing something isn’t true. However for the most part I will have to agree with what she said since the Patriot Act does have more positives than negatives.