Should portions of the Constitution be suspended to fight terror ?

Question

Jose R

Your answer was the one I wanted to hear but I was afraid I would not hear

I stated no opinion in the question (up until now) because I didn't want to bias the answers people gave

Answer 1

No. That's like saying, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

"Suspensions" of Liberty tend to become permanent. We might defeat the terrorists by becoming a dictatorship--but we still will have lost.

Answer 2

No, but it might be time to consider federal funding for a program to teach people what's really in it and what isn't.

The Constitution has a lot of limitations that the federal government overlooks (the existence of the DEA and FDA are examples) but they really don't need to go beyond the real limitations to fight terrorism. They DO need to go beyond what people THINK are the boundaries, but it ain't so.

Here's a hint: Read the Fourth Amendment carefully. It very clearly protects you from PHYSICAL interference, but it doesn't say anything that forbids eavesdropping, or even requires a warrant to eavesdrop. That requirement "emanated from a penumbra" or something, but it ain't clearly there.

Answer 3

I don't think our founding fathers went to all the trouble to create the documents to have them suspended. When this country was founded, we did not fight other countries for profit, we fought for freedom. When you stick your greedy nose in other peoples pockets, and lives, that brings hate. We should concentrate on making our country the best it can be before attempting to change cultures that were in place, that were not bringing us 'terror', that were our friends.

Answer 4

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

and this is the 5th amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

pay attention to the last few lines

Answer 5

Absolutely not! Jose R hit the nail right on the head! *sm*

Answer 6

You must trust people too much. That's nuts.

OK when do you think you will recover your rights?
Let me tell you, NEVER.

The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.

Answer 7

Why not? We allowed that for the war on drugs and for gun control. And for political correctness. The government is getting used to us not caring about them taking away our civil liberties.

Answer 8

No, portions of the middle east should be irradiated to fight terror.

Answer 9

Just what constitutional right have you been deprived of? I haven't noticed anyone infringing my rights to free speech, right to own and bear arms, right to not testify against myself, right to peaceably assemble, right to worship my God in a manner that I deem appropriate, My house hasn't been taken over by military forces without my permission, I travel about at will and freely within the international boundaries of our country, so tell me, how, personally, have you been deprived of any constitutional rights?

Answer 10

Never!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1