This should be interesting to say the least
2007-11-20 09:02:20 · 14 answers · asked by scottanthonydavis 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
For those of you who are claiming that we can have both
I urge you to take a look at what certain signing statements and the Patriot act have done as far as modifying our Constitutional freedoms!
It is not the same, and with this new stle of Corporate/Lawyer Government - no we cannot have both!
2007-11-20 09:39:18 · update #1
NO BRAINER!
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FROM PEOPLE TRYING
TO SAY THEY ARE PROTECTING US FROM TERROR
ATTACKS!
2007-11-20 21:52:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, it's clear to see where your bias lies. I don't see why both can't be done, in fact, in order to create an atmosphere that offers a real level of protection supposedly some constitutional freedom has to be relinquished. On a day to day basis, I have not felt "less free" or like I have "less constitutional rights" or that my rights are being violated, and so I hope that if they are violating my rights, without my knowledge, and without impacting or otherwise disturbing my life, that they are effective in their efforts to prevent terror attacks. Taken to extremes, obviously a complete loss of rights would keep us very safe, and completely bored and more or less imprisoned. Allowing terrorists to have free reign would be equally imposing, and you would argue it infringes on your freedom were it you lived in an atmosphere like that.
2007-11-20 09:24:15 · answer #2 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Our Constitutional freedoms do protect us from terror attacks by putting security more in the hands of the people and private enterprise vs our generally incompetent corrupt government.
2007-11-20 09:07:26 · answer #3 · answered by Nicholas A 2 · 5⤊ 2⤋
I want my Constitution to be more than a "Godamn piece of paper!" I want my Country to be guided by The Rule of Law that our founding fathers intended!
I am very scared of what is happening to our country! I feel like a fool- I should have been paying attention a long time ago!
2007-11-20 10:42:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Quite frankly, I disagree with your premise.
However if you think it is your constitution freedom to have communications with suspected foreign terrorists and have them secure from gov't snooping, then yes, that freedom will have to go.
Historically, in time of war, the freedoms always get curtailed a bit. FDR imprisoned many thousands of innocent US Citizens. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and threw journalists and even legislators in jail. The extra amount of snooping the gov't is doing is warranted, given the nature of the enemy.
The freedoms we've had curtailed are very minor and necessary. I am quite happy with the current balance.
2007-11-20 10:12:18 · answer #5 · answered by Uncle Pennybags 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Constitutional freedom IS security -- from state terror.
2007-11-20 09:15:47 · answer #6 · answered by celvin 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Easy>>>Constitutional Freedom.
What terror attacks ????
2007-11-20 09:06:09 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The second amendment is "up for grabs" and will hopefully be decided once and for all by the supreme court. If they strike down the right to own and keep guns, we will find out very soon what terrorism is like. And we won't be able to individually protect ourselves.
The second amendment was not written to protect us from eachother and from foreigners. It was written to protect us from our own government.
Keep your eyes on this supreme court.
2007-11-20 09:11:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
Constitutional Freedom. And besides, who says you can't have both?
2007-11-20 09:09:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
The freedom to protect yourself from terrorists.
2007-11-20 09:29:29 · answer #10 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋