2007-04-22 01:37:47 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
When we are under invasion or in a state of rebellion, our constitution says our govt may do this. Therefore, during other wars, they may not restrict our freedom.
Sad thing, our founders didn't imagine we'd be off on imperialistic wars of choice (once we were done with that whole manifest destiny thing.)
2007-04-22 01:40:48 · answer #1 · answered by cassandra 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
As a general rule, no. There are exceptions, as cassandra noted.
For the most part, the possibility of freedoms not being reinstated is a bigger threat than of the freedoms hurting the war effort.
And, yes, quite a few restrictions were put on people in WWII. One of the strangest was that newspapers couldn't report on the weather. Weather systems generally move from West to East, so the weather we had on the East coast today would reach Europe in a couple days giving Germany a chance to plan for the weather. You have to wonder how effective that was, but at least they had to have one of their own, or a German sympathizer, in the US to look outside and see what the weather was like.
2007-04-22 02:02:36 · answer #2 · answered by Bob G 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, Heck i do not even know how they could.
In a Democracy every vote counts so any "freedoms" they set aside for awhile was and is their choice to not have or to be "limited" -not any government dictating policy.
In a Republic, Yes, because the people did not personally take part in the "war vote", they voted for people that they believed would vote the way they think and some times it just does not happen that way - in reality at least, so anything they are subjected to has to be handed-down or ordered of the civilians by government.
Only way to not be "limited of freedoms" is to vote for people that will vote the way you wish them to so such things do not have to be handed down.
2007-04-22 02:52:31 · answer #3 · answered by friendlyflyr 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
SInce your question is phrased with 'think' I will disregard common practice, history and the Constitution. I 'think' that even in the most perfect democracy there may come a time when the welfare of the country and the continuation of the democracy for future generations may dictate that some of the rights normally accorded the citizens may need to be temporarily mitigated. Sometimes 'Freedom is not Free'.
2007-04-22 01:47:19 · answer #4 · answered by Nightstalker1967 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the needs of the day. For example during the war in London they had curfews and had to have all shades pulled after dark. We here in the states had stamps because foods were rationed. We didn't even have the copper penny, we need the copper for the war. So yes, sometimes limitations have to be implemented for the safety and security of the people.
2007-04-22 01:47:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Which 'democratic' governments are you referring to? The US is a Federation of States, not a democracy. Democracy is simply mob-rule. Our Constitution was written to protect minority rights and balance the power.
But if you mean the US and our allies in the so-called War on terra, the answer is no.
2007-04-22 01:43:28 · answer #6 · answered by Michael B 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
To an extent yes. Too much reporting and correspondence can doom an endeavor to failure. We are witnesses to that.
To those above me - It has been done in every successful war we have had. Those that were not were sabotaged by excess freedom of the citizenry.
2007-04-22 01:42:47 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no i don't. In this very case when your President (I voted for the other guy) won't even pull out of this hopeless war our freedom would be put on hiatus indefinitely.
2007-04-22 01:42:21 · answer #8 · answered by Mr Big 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Short and sweet answer.
No.
2007-04-22 01:58:34 · answer #9 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our government has no choice. If the war needs gasoline, it will be rationed. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
2007-04-22 01:46:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋