Why should the government not be able to limit the first amendment rights in time of war or national emergency?
2006-10-30 15:03:04 · 6 answers · asked by longislandgrl22 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Im talking about the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798
2006-10-30 15:15:08 · update #1
I believe the government can indeed limit 1st Amendment rights in time of war -- DECLARED war. We have been fighting wars since WWII without legally declaring them, so the War laws cannot come into effect.
If we had done this in Viet Nam, Fonda would still be in prison, and we would have won the war. Surviving VC said a few years ago, that we actually won the war, they were thinking of giving up, but there came Fonda and the crybabies, just like in Iraq, and the VC realized if they stuck to it we would lose all by ourselves, just as many of you are trying to do in Iraq.
2006-10-30 15:14:45 · answer #1 · answered by retiredslashescaped1 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would make the Presidential election process almost impossible during time of war as the sitting president would have the ability to criticize opponents, but opponents could not criticize him. In fact, even the act of running against the president could have been considered sedition.
Fortunately, the A&SA expired in 1801.
2006-10-30 15:18:29 · answer #2 · answered by ML 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just look what people thought of the NSA wire tapping program and how they reacted to it. I doubt it would get passed unless things got seriously bad.
2006-10-30 15:09:24 · answer #3 · answered by Squawkers 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If its not constitutional, it'll be challenged, and settled.
2006-10-30 15:10:14 · answer #4 · answered by genny_gump 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, agree with that
2016-05-22 14:23:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
without that what would you be fighting for?
2006-10-30 15:13:48 · answer #6 · answered by Jose R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋