Posted on 11/23/2001 2:58:00 PM PST by Smogger
A conversational tool.
It has a definate bearing on the discussion,
because we are having a discussion.
You feel that I'm not understanding you,
so you use a hypothetical argument to
illustrate your point. I do the same.
It's not against the rules.
It's a tool of rational people,
used to promote understanding.
You're not in court.
Stop trying to bully the opposing witnesses,
and let us make our point.
Debate what we say, not how we say it.
"...I thought you were interested in my opinion.
My mistake.
# 400 by JD86
************
I am interested in your opinion, JD86.
I too am confused.
I see a clear violation of our freedom.
You seem to see my concern as nothing but paranoia
When Castro took power in Cuba in 1960, he randomly put people in charge of their neighborhoods to report goings-on, etc. The people, who were anti-communist, thought this will be a snap as I just won't report anything. Castro then "created" incidents within the various neighborhoods to see who would report and who wouldn't. Guess what happened to those who didn't report? Suddenly, EVERYONE was reporting every little detail about what was happening in his/her respective neighborhoods.
We all know that the guvmint sends people out to catch landlords who won't rent to certain ethnicities, etc. Who is to say that the guvmint won't send agents to go to various retailers (big and small) with $10,000 to see whether guy complies with the reporting regulations? How about sending out IRS Agents to check as to whether they comply or not? The Patriot Bill has all the ear-marks of Big Brother and Fidel Castro.
miss print
PS Does anyone know whether the Patriot bill includes the following four little words in it: "and for other purposes?" If so, then the guvmint can write anything into the bill they want - after it has been passed - because it decides what the other purposes are AT A LATER DATE.
Considering the attack on 9-11 and considering the possibility of more attacks, the possible use of smallpox - the possible use of suitcase nukes, and the Communist Chinese supplying Cuba with arms and munitions and the Communist Chinese now controlling the Panama Canal and the port at the Bahamas, I'd say it's time for all of us to keep our eyes - not "Wide Shut" but...Wide Open!
Nah, we just leaf through Reader's Digest at the barbershop and learn all about it.
I am certain our troops appreciate your support.
Of course I support them. But until Congress declares War and institutes specific and temporary Wartime-Only measures (remember fuel, meat, sugar rations?), then there is no way in hell I'll support stuff like what's in this fishwrap Patriot Bill.
Good point, but, errr, um, did you mean "affection" or affectation"? I used to smoke cigarettes but only Dunhills. I gave up smoking easily as it was strictly an affectation rather than an addiction. Hey, we could go on all night with word fun but it wouldn't get us any closer to getting rid of the Patriot bill that turns retailers into snoops, would it?
With admiration and affection, miss print
PS Did you get your Juris Doctorate in '86? Just curious about your handle...
Okay, serious questions. Why do you think it is entrapment to check to see if someone is following the law? Another example you didn't use is checking bars to see if they are serving minors. Is there any pro-active law enforcement activity that you find acceptable? Where do you draw the line?
On this point we agree. I would point out however that at the time the Constitution was written, there were thousands of people in the country versus millions of people in the country. The absolute freedom available in Kentucky when the nearest house was 100 miles away is not available in Kentucky in a subdivision where the next house is 10 ft. away. Does that I mean all constitutional rights should be subjugated to the needs of the government? NO. Does it mean I think there is never a time when a limit on a constitutional right is permissible? NO. I think each situation must be adjudged on its own merits. Balancing the constitutional right in question against the provisions of the Constitution which provide for the enactment of laws for the General Welfare of the People.
People sometimes forget that there is more to the Constitution than the Bill of Rights.
The General Welfare of the People means that the government does for the individual what the individual cannot do for himself (gender-neutral usage), i.e., keeping a Navy, building an ABM shield, etc. Setting up check-points (whether on the highway or the airports) and asking retailers to rat on their customers smells of Nazi (national socialism) Germany and communist Cuba.
One of the things most people forget is that the Founding Fathers set up our republic as LIMITED government. The people were freer when they governed themselves - according to the Holy Scriptures. (Thomas Jefferson, when Supervisor of Education for the District of Columbia, said that there were 2 books every schoolchild should have - a bible and a hymnal.)
You are right this isn't Kentucky where one's nearest neighbor is now only 10 yds away instead of 100 miles (200 years ago), ditto for Calif. If we, as Americans, were as religious as we were 200 years ago, there wouldn't be any need for intrusive laws that are being foisted upon us in the name of "security" and "safety." 200 years ago, the literacy rate in the U.S. was about 90%. Today, the literacy rate is just about the lowest in the industrialized world. Those who can read, seem to limit their reading to just the headlines of the morning paper or the captions that run along the bottom of the TV screen. They (not including you) don't usually show up at FR.
You have presented some excellent points.
However, I would submit that protecting the country from terrorists is one of the things the individual cannot do for himself.
Again, I think we agree on the objective....I think where people disagree is on the "reasonableness" of the provisions of the Patriot Act for intrusion in people's private lives. I think the question in most people's minds is "Is there sufficient ie reasonable justification for this level of intrusion?" I think most people would agree there are some instances where it is reasonable to limit the absolute right of privacy. Where reasonable people disagree is on what those instances are. That is why we are having this discussion on whether or not the Patriot Act will pass a constitutional challenge.
Reasonable is a subjective word. The U.S. Constitution does not have any provisions for subjective terms. The only place where one can find where the Founding Fathers thought "reasonable" might fit is in the 10th Amendment which granted the sovereign STATES the right to determine what those instances might be. "Reasonable" is not granted to the federal government.
The Patriot Act cannot pass a strict constitutional test. It was passed AFTER the name was changed (formerly the Anti-Terrorism Act) when patriots were outraged. So it was given a gimmicky acronyn ("PATRIOT") for a name and passed. After all, since 9-11, who wouldn't be for a bill with the name PATRIOT in it?
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.