Simple question: Is our Constitution at risk?

Question

If so, are you ok to surrender your Constitutional rights and your Civil Liberties in exchange for what this Government has called security?

With the changes that they have made, do you feel more secure now, even though they are currently telling us that an al-Qaida cell or cells are on their way to America?

Answer 1

That's why we need Ron Paul or a Libertarian to reestablish the Constitution and get rid of these bozos of Dem & Rep.

Answer 2

The greatest risk the Constitution faces--and has faced for almost 50 years--is a runaway judiciary that disregards what the Constitution actually says.

This administration has done nothing to make us "surrender Constitutional rights and Civil Liberties." In spite of the breathless rhetoric of those who oppose fighting terrorists.

The judiciary, on the other hand, has been chipping away at our rights and liberties for decades.

Answer 3

yes it is, but not in the way that most think it is.

the constitution is legally defined by how the sitting supreme court views it.

our current court is clearly deeply misguided and may be the only real legacy that bush has on america.

recent rulings have been tilted very much in favor of the expression of corporations and very much against the expression and rights of individuals.

bush and the repubs will be gone soon enough, but elements of this court will be around for decades.

this is why bush CAN NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE ALLOWED TO APPOINT ANOTHER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE - even if the court loses a year of activity.

the repubs have demonstrated that they are not to be trusted with power and elected office and can be removed over the next three or four election cycles - but we are stuck with these justices forever...

Answer 4

You want to know what's the worst part though about those al-qaida cells. Its all based on a "GUT" feeling. And yes the constitution is at risk. By both parties.

Answer 5

the form delegates particular powers to the federal government. Any means that may no longer given to them interior the type is delegated to the States according to the tenth replace. The tenth replace: The powers now no longer delegated to the U. S. by way of the type, nor prohibited by way of it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. scientific coverage concerns have consistently been a state concern, and that i've got have been given self theory it might proceed to be that way via actuality it particularly is now no longer a means that became into meant to bypass to the federal government. If the Congress does placed an decision interior the bill that enables a state to be sure out of this equipment, it particularly is surprising with me, whether it might in no way be compelled upon the sovereign 50 states.

Answer 6

I'm more worried about the Supreme Court than about Bush. Bush will be outta there in a year and a half no matter what happens, but maybe sooner. The Supreme Court is now stacked with right-wing ideologues and will be that way for years.

It's really ironic how conservatives bitched and moaned for -decades- about the 'activist' Supreme Court, how they were going beyond their constitutional powers and 'legislating from the bench'. Now we can see it just depends on whose ox is gored.

Answer 7

Yes.

McCain-Feingold

"Fairness Doctrine"

2nd Amendment restrictions

Kelo decision

Liberalism run amok

Answer 8

I'm with Ben Franklin on that subject.

Repeal the (un)Patriot Act!

Answer 9

No. It is not at risk now. But wait until Clinton or Obama gets in... Then you will see it at risk.

Answer 10

nope surrender nothing especially in a bogus war on terror. A war on terror isnt even a declarable war. You cannot have a war on a tactic.