In order for a case to be made that the Patriot Act legislation is valid and rational, I think that one has to make the argument that the attacks of September 11 and others like them could have been prevented and can be prevented with greater alleviation of institutional formalities on law enforcement agencies. This argument is rooted in the idea that if Constitutional requirements are lessened in the "spirit" of a "post- 9.11 world," greater freedom for law enforcement agencies is needed to confront an enemy that is nebulous and unconventional in their methods and secrecy. I think that furthering this argument is going to argue that it is not rational and it is not valid to limit law enforcement agencies through the Constitution. Advocates of this argument could argue that if the framers understood the real and immediate threat of the "war on terror," the Constitution would be seen as something that needs to be malleable to adapt to that threat. The Patriot Act's ultimate justification is that it creates the dichotomy that "formalistic rules" that are outlined in the Constitution inhibit the need to protect a nation who is under siege from the threat of terrorism. In this light, a case for the Patriot Act legislation as being valid and rational as a defense for the nation can be made.