Should the threat of terrorism guide Law makers in bending the constitution?

Question

http://www.cptexas.org/articles/vp040103.shtml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6131670/

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/

Answer 1

In a word No. By breaking the basic tenets of the constitution we are allowing the government the opportunity to look into every ones lives under the guise that it is for the greater good. Isn't this how democracy's are brought down by despots and communist regimes? No I think they have gone far enough with cameras on every corner the ability to see where you drive the ability to watch almost every move we make everyday. I think its time we told them no more.

Answer 2

Supreme Court justice Blackwell once observed "The Constitution is not a suicide pact".

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended d the right of Habeas Corpus. In WWII, we detained people of Japanese descent, and had restrictions on the press.

These actions were deemed crucial to winning the battle at hand. Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. When our enemies find a clever way to destroy us, we should not just point at the Constitution and passively lament, "Well, there's nothing we can do to fight back. Let's just sit here quietly and die."

With Islamic terrorism, we are facing an evil that threatens our very existence. If we expect to be able to return to the full rights it extends (new laws like the Patriot Act have sunset provisions that will disable them in a few years), than we have to free our law-enforcement authorities to do their job. We need, in short, to trust them. I do. They are Americans. Our enemies are not.

Liberals always naively point to what I term the Sci-Fi scenario. They posit a future in which the government monitors our every thought. They take something like the Patriot Act (which, it has been proven, has not injured one single innocent person), and warn that it is the first step to a government with absolute power.

Well, we are not living in a sci-fi movie. There are far too many checks and balances to ever let things get so out of hand, but Liberals don't seem to grasp this very simple point.

Imagine you were living in a house that was designated with national landmark status, meaning it was against the law to alter its appearance. However, an out of control forest fire was racing your way. Wouldn't it be sensible to make temporary changes to the facade to make it more immune to fire damage than to let the whole thing burn?

Answer 3

This is exactly how you would go about turning a free democratic society into a totalitarian police state. The enemy threat allegedly makes the curtailing of rights necessary and eventually the rights disappear altogether in the interests of national security. The Bush administration has been stripping away rights from the American people and most people have gone along with it.

Answer 4

The odds of being killed by terrorists, even with more advanced weapons, is less then the likelihood of being struck by lightning. Let's support our Constitution and not cower in the face of some towelheads in dresses.

Answer 5

President Bush and the USA PATRIOT Act are nothing compared to the auster measures taken during the American Civil War, and both World Wars.
Terrorism is a new kind of enemy, an enemy that uses our freedoms as a weapon against us. Whatever it takes to stop them is fine by me.

Answer 6

No.

"Bending the Constitution" is a code phrase for strippping Americans of their rights--the same rights Americans have fought and died for for over 200 years.

Ask yourself this. Why does the bush regime want to weaken the constitution so badly?

We defeated the Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany--simultaneously--in less time than Bush has had us in Iraq. There were restrictions at the time--but no infringment of privacy or civil rights. And no one in FDR's government asked for the kind of permanaent powerws Bush is demanding.

around 1950 (the McCarthy era) the right wing demanded the same kinds of diminishing of Americans' freedom Bush demands. They said we "had to to defeat communism." Well, we as a nation told McCarthy and his ilk to go to h**l. We're still here-and free. The USSR doesn't even exist anymore.

And Bush's rationale: Never mind the fact that we've defeated or outlasted one would be totalitarian empire after another, without surrenering our freedom to do it. He wants Americans to give up our Constitution and our freedom in exchange for "protection" from a few terrorists?

No way. Not now. Not ever.

"Give me Liberty or give me Death"
--Patrick henry

Answer 7

Do you really want an answer? Or are you looking for an answer that conforms to the bias in your question? I don't say that to be rude, just to preface my answer.

This is a debate that obviously comes down to whether the whole is more important than the individual. I personally don't believe there is a correct answer. Someone may not have a problem with their phone lines being tapped, as long as they aren't doing anything wrong.

You can also think about the fact that the Constitution never guarentee's "privacy". It is just something that we assume that we are intitled to. Just something to think about.

Answer 8

No, I just got a reply email today from a Repub congressman. He maintains that this has to be done because it is "outdated." He seemed like he is under some kind of hypnosis, because then he stated that no one is spying on US citizens......

Answer 9

Absolutely - a document written ove 200 years ago cannot possibly address every concern and threat that face us today.
However, the INTENT of the constitution must never be undermined.

Answer 10

The Constitution was meant to be a 'living document.' Our founding fathers never anticipated Islamic extremists whose sole purpose is to kill and injure American citizens. The Constitution must be updated to ensure the continued safety and prosperity of the nation.