Posted on 06/29/2004 9:27:45 AM PDT by ksen
I don't know. Does it matter? He was exercising what we thought was our Constitutional right to be silent and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
I do believe that alot of our rights are being slowly eroded but is it not largely due to the times we live in ?
That's really no excuse.
The Constitution lays out our rights as being inalienable. I take that to mean forever, not over a specified period of time.
So are you perfectly comfortable with a potential President Hillary exercising the powers the government has currently taken for itself?
Huh. And a GOP majority wasn't enough to convict him on articles of impeachment. More of the same won't change a thing.
It is long past enough if you believe in a free republic.
It is long past enough if you believe in a free republic.
We're facing a very different issue - but it is quite dangerous.
Thought I'd lower you blood pressure with this ping..;-)
That should show that just because someone has an "R" after their name doesn't mean they should automatically get our vote.
You can say that again. ;^)
Dangerous enough to shred the Bill of Rights?
Personally I think that the more we disregard the Constitution trying to fight the terrorists the more they win.
60 is needed for filibuster proofing the Senate. With 60 the judges would have been appointed.
And how many of the judges leading the charge towards a police state were appointed by Republicans?
Ping!
Another day and another defense of the suspension of rights. Seems to be a trend forming.
Please post my post that you responded to and your response together so that everyone can see how your response bears no relationship to what I posted.
Please document how the Patriot Act shredded the Bill of Rights. Most of the Patriot Act took laws that applied to criminal investigations and applied them to terrorist/national security investigations. If anything, keep much of the Patriot Act, as it applies mostly to suspected foreign agents, and look at some of its precursors that are more prone to target innocent American citizens.
Personally I think that the more we disregard the Constitution trying to fight the terrorists the more they win.
Personally, I think there are some problems with the Patriot Act that will not be solved with hyperbole and alarmism, but instead by sober, careful examination and reasoned debate. For example, some folks claim that that Patriot Act allows for warrantless searches without probable cause - however, a suspect must first be determined to have probable cause that they are a foreign agent. That standard is established through E.O. - but it should be legislated. But there is still a judicial hearing before the searches can take place.
Other parts of the Patriot Act are more in line with broader erosions in privacy. Others are good ideas - allowing roving wiretaps makes sense in an age when perps can just get another cell phone with ease.
Another day and another socialist 9th CC ruling overturned. Seems to be a trend forming. Two for Two last week. Doesn't look good for the medical marijuana scam case coming forward.
I am simply framing the debate. Too many folks run around acting as if the Founders never intended for national security issues to allow curtailment of rights. And that simply isn't true.
Once that matter is addressed, then we can look at the issues as to whether they make sense and whether the security benefits of a proposal or law outweight the incursions of rights, and what safeguards are needed, or if the law is just not right. But when the alarmists get going full speed, they tend to drown out reasoned debate.
60 to vote through Dubya's judicial choices without interference from Mrs. Clinton and her ilk.
They don't want to solve the problems, they want to dump the Patriot Act, Bush and Ashcroft.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.