A court today issued the following verdict calling the Bush cronies outlaws. CONs what do you think?

Question

It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Answer 1

As a conservative (I'm NOT a NEO-con), I agree. What Bush and his bunch are doing is treasonous.

There's no room in our Constitution for a dictatorship. Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution. By breaking that oath he's proven himself to be a liar.

Answer 2

The framers of the constitution had no concept whatsoever of electronic communication or wiretaps. They also had no experience of global terrorism, or any weapon of mass destruction worse than a cannon full of grapeshot.
Don't you think their "intent" would change somewhat if they knew what was coming?
"Violations" of this nature have occurred during every war this country has ever been in. All of our wartime presidents have authorized extraordinary measures that push the letter of the constitution. The problem here is that no one "gets" the fact that we ARE at war, just because the enemy doesn't wear a uniform or openly represent a hostile government. Monitoring enemy communications is a strategic necessity, not a trampling of civil rights.

Answer 3

I think the judge will be overruled. He is expressing his opinion rather than looking at the merits of the case.

The Framers never considered wire taps because there were no wires then. Duh!

Once again, the ACLU has proven it's position as the lackey of America's enemies.

Don't confuse one judge's opinion with what's right or wrong.

Answer 4

To all trying to turn us into another Middle East YOU LOSE!

Answer 5

Amen.

Answer 6

And where was the word "outlaw", in your skull full of mush ??

Answer 7

That's just your unexpert opinion.