Replies

Occasionally - but remember, they were men, ordinary flawed men, all of whom were writing in accordance with their worldview as was shaped in the middle of the 18th century.

One of the things that we are supposed to do with our faculty for reason and adaptation is to confront each new issue and challenge with solutions that work within the framework of American ideals - not lock ourselves into a death pact that confines us to reactive moves only.

In other words, hanging a terrorist after the fact brings scant comfort to his victims and does not dissuade his colleagues one iota - shutting him down in advance works one helluva lot better.

One of the things that we are supposed to do with our faculty for reason and adaptation is to confront each new issue and challenge with solutions that work within the framework of American ideals - not lock ourselves into a death pact that confines us to reactive moves only.

I completely agree. Particularly, I share your and CJ's suspicion of ACLU-type solutions - part of what I was referring to in my post to him about mixing lies with the truth. Those types say that government shouldn't even be allowed to keep tabs on people from a distance. I recall hearing that it even got to the point, sometime in the 1970's, where the FBI was even forbidden to keep newspaper clippings on file of people they were trying to investigate (I wish I had a source for that). This type of stuff creates a frustrating polarization in the debate, whereby if you have any legitimate concerns about powers that government is claiming, you must be on the side of the anti-newspaper-clippers (which I think is what the ACLU wants).

I'm not an expert on security, but like I said earlier on the thread, if the law enforcement agencies already have authorization under the Constitution to do certain things, then there's no need for Congress to pass an act which allows them to do it. If the Constitution doesn't give them authorization to do these things, then any attempt to do so by statute would constitute a usurpation.

All that aside, my point in bringing up the Founders was that even if these things are justified in the name of security, they're also dangerous to liberty, and therefore it doesn't help matters any by calling anyone who raises those concerns a "Chicken Little".

One of the things that we are supposed to do with our faculty for reason and adaptation is to confront each new issue and challenge with solutions that work within the framework of American ideals

I'm glad you agree that, if you don't like the constraints of the United States Consitution as written, your one and only recourse is to amend it via the procedures laid out in Article V.

Weaseling and redefinition to evade the rules are not "American ideals", Billzebubba and his sycophants notwithstanding.