Liberty and Safety

Liberty verus safety

  • The government can interpret the Bill of Rights broadly to protect me from terrorists

    Votes: 7 3.7%

  • The government must adhere to the Constitution at all times, even in the pursuit of terrorists

    Votes: 181 96.3%
  • Total voters
    188
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lobotomy Boy said:
Where is Ben Franklin when you need him?
Click to expand...
He's turning over in his grave. In fact, at this rate, we may have to start referring to him as 'Pinwheel' Franklin.
Biker
 
He's turning over in his grave. In fact, at this rate, we may have to start referring to him as 'Pinwheel' Franklin.
Click to expand...
I say we hook him to a generator and solve the energy crisis; at least some good can come if it.
 
Poll questions are not valid. You are asking people to respond by choosing between two options, neither one of which is supported by either writings of the Founding Fathers nor current scholarly opinion on Constitutional law because you've added the phrases "to protect me from terrorists" and "in the pursuit of terrorists."

It is NOT the function of "the government" per se to broadly interpret the Bill of Rights. It is, however, the function of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution (see J. Madison, The Federalist Papers) ...

Now you want to talk about the powers Congress has to protect us from terrorists ... or pursue terrorists? Check out Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution ... Congress has the power to " ... make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying in Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by theis Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department [State Department -- NSA?] or Officer [President?] thereof ... Earlier we see that Congress is empowered to "...define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War ... make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water .... etc., etc.

I'm no fan of the administration's actions in terms of the widespread electronic surveillance on American citizens and questionable wiretapping authorizations in the name of the "war on terrorism" ... I believe the case can easily be made that all Americans' rights under the 4th Amendment are being abrogated by much of what the government has done ... and is doing. And I'm also no Constitutional scholar ... but it seems to me that some of what's been done does, in fact, have legal basis in the Constitution, so long as Congress is onboard and providing its approval. The larger question is, can the administration prove that its efforts have been in accordance with the laws? And what further surveillance methods have been employed that we don't even know about yet?

To me, your poll seems designed simply to incur responses either in favor of the actions of the Bush administration, or against the administration's action in the guise of strict constructionism. It's just not that simple.
 
Last edited:
Should have been a third option, "I won't vote for a Democrat because they will deliver neither liberty nor security."

Bunch o' friggin' wankers.
 
He's turning over in his grave. In fact, at this rate, we may have to start referring to him as 'Pinwheel' Franklin.
Click to expand...

I bet he's wishing he had handed the string on that kite to some progenitor of Lincoln's rather than his son.
 
Honestly, I don't think ol' Ben is turning over. I think he's laughing. Wasn't it he that said "you have a republic if you can keep it".
I knew it's almost impossible to keep a republic running.
 
Old Dog, I specified the fight against terror because I didn't want to discuss such acts as the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. I wanted to focus on the issues of today. And I didn't specify the President becaue he's not the only leader who has done this, and probably won't be the only one to do so in the future. I also didn't want this to turn into a Bush bashing session.
 
LB, welcome back. I understand what you're saying; however, with the current issues at hand, I don't know how one can ask any kind of questions about government excesses vis a vis the Constitution and not have a debate result that won't simply turn out to be the two camps (pro-Bush admin, pro-Patriot Act) and the die-hard civil libertarian/BOR supporters engaging in competitive urination.

Frankly, I think no matter what form of government a country suffers under, no matter what political party is in power, there will always be sordid episodes of government excesses in the name of "protecting" the country and its citizens. Mill, Hobbes, Locke, Machiavelli ... they all nailed it. Nature of man, nature of governments and all that ... Our founding fathers created a framework better than any in history, but even that brilliant document could not prevent horrific incidents such as the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII ...
 
Old Dog, well I guess I'm strange, I'm Pro-Bush, but firmly believe he's lost it here.
 
I've always thought that defining one's self with a political label limited a person's usefulness. That said, in theory the Republican party generally represents my views a lot better than the Democratic party. But the Bush administration has not been what I consider a good practitioner of Republican views.
 
The government must adhere to the Constitution at all times. Those government employees who violate it do so at their peril.
 
Old Dog, well I guess I'm strange, I'm Pro-Bush, but firmly believe he's lost it here.
Click to expand...
I'm with you there.

But the Bush administration has not been what I consider a good practitioner of Republican views.
Click to expand...
I heartily concur.

The government must adhere to the Constitution at all times. Those government employees who violate it do so at their peril.
Click to expand...
Exactly; hold those accountable who would violate our 4th and 5th Amendment rights with illegal -- and quite probably unnecessary --, wiretapping and electronic surveillance. But first -- Congress must address, per its duty as enumerated in Article 1, the apparent loopholes under which the administration is making its case that its efforts are not violating current laws. Does any really see this happening anytime soon? And the Supreme Court cannot begin to address the Constitutionality without a case, an appellant -- given the ultra-secrecy of the wiretapping, who among those possibly affected will come out? And when? Gee, now the Justice Department is looking into whether or not the NY Times' leaking of the NSA actions is a criminal offense ... Where does it all end?
 
I'm surprised that three people actually selected the first option. I wouldn't have expected anyone to select that.
 
I'm surprised that three people actually selected the first option. I wouldn't have expected anyone to select that.
Click to expand...
Why? The government (through the courts) has always had that right, not just to protect you from terrorists but for virtually any other reason. The second poll statement is the more interesting to me, because it seems to assume that the first statement is somehow contradictory to the idea that government would not be adhering to the Constitution if it chose to interpret the Bill of Rights broadly.
 
Poll questions are not valid. You are asking people to respond by choosing between two options, neither one of which is supported by either writings of the Founding Fathers nor current scholarly opinion on Constitutional law because you've added the phrases "to protect me from terrorists" and "in the pursuit of terrorists."
Click to expand...

"to protect me from King George" and "in the pursuit of King George and his Army."

when you straddle the fence pilgrim...ya go to get on one side or the other or ya end up getting hurt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top