Presidential Candidates and The Constitution / Bill of Rights.

[helpless]

Presidential Candidates and The Constitution / Bill of Rights.

Does it even matter to Americans who will uphold the constitution or are most people treating this like American Idol?

[grampster]

What's the constitution and bill of rights??

[m1911owner]

Given how few people these days appear to understand the Constitution, and understand why it says what it says, I'm inclined to think that most people don't actually care which candidates will uphold the Constitution.

[Sergeant Bob]

Hmmmm, I wonder which direction this thread is going?

[HankB]

Well, I heard Mitt Romney say he believes in upholding the Second Amendment and banning assault weapons . . . 

[Paddy]

GWB and the Congress have pretty much shredded the BOR.  And don't tell me Lincoln did the same thing.  Lincoln had a noble cause; the preservation of the Union.

[HankB]

. . . Lincoln had a noble cause; the preservation of the Union.

Damnyankee.
 

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, a noble cause makes everything OK.  As if preventing future terrorist attacks wouldn't be just as noble a cause.  In any case, if GWB is eroding the Constitution, he's only a bit player in a very long drama.  Your view is a tad myopic, Riley.

[SomeKid]

Preservation of the Union was a good cause in the 1860s? Coulda fooled me...

[Paddy]

As if preventing future terrorist attacks wouldn't be just as noble a cause.

Really?  Then why have everybody in gubmint, including Cheney and Skeletor, said future attacks are inevitable, it's just a matter of time?

[Paddy]

Damnyankee.

Preservation of the Union was a good cause in the 1860s? Coulda fooled me...

It's over.  You lost. Get over it.

[Perd Hapley]

As if preventing future terrorist attacks wouldn't be just as noble a cause.

Really?  Then why have everybody in gubmint, including Cheney and Skeletor, said future attacks are inevitable, it's just a matter of time?

Oh my stars and garters.      The supposed inevitability of terrorism has no bearing on whether fighting it is a noble cause.  Sort of like how crime is inevitable, yet stopping crime is still a noble cause.  Sort of like how stupid is inevitable, yet there is a certain nobility to curing it.  Or at least trying.   

[The Rabbi]

I remember Tex Antoine, the weatherman in NYC in the 1970s said "rape is inevitable so just sit back and enjoy it.
Of course he ended his career with that remark.

[RevDisk]

GWB and the Congress have pretty much shredded the BOR.  And don't tell me Lincoln did the same thing.  Lincoln had a noble cause; the preservation of the Union.

Irregardless of Lincoln's intentions, and I'm not a big fan of his, he set the stage for future shreddings.  He may or may not have intended for his shreddings to be temporary, but instead they've become the status quo.  Same with GWB, irregardless of his intentions, his infringements will remain for some time. 

Governments are not in the habit of relinquishing power.  It's been that way since the Roman Empire.

Basically all of the likely candidates are typical politicians.  They will not give up any government powers, they will not return too many civil liberties, nor make significant cuts to government spending.

[Fly320s]

Does it even matter to Americans who will uphold the constitution or are most people treating this like American Idol?

No.  All that matters is that people have their entertainment, goodies, and entitlements.  People will always vote for more of those instead of liberty.

It sure is a good thing that we are a republic, although I don't see how that helps us much these days.  Voting politicians out of office doesn't seem to have much of a deterrent effect.  I don't see much of a roll-back of laws and entitlements, either.

[Perd Hapley]

I like what RevDisk said.

Except that I'm withholding judgment on whether Bush has shredded any rights not already shredded.  Well, he did sign "Campaign Finance Reform."   


Did I just spell "withholding" with a hyphen? 

[RevDisk]

I like what RevDisk said.

Except that I'm withholding judgment on whether Bush has shredded any rights not already shredded.  Well, he did sign "Campaign Finance Reform."   

I can see your argument.  Technically, Congress approved after the fact many of his blatantly un-Constitutional actions.  So blame should be split?

[Perd Hapley]

It's not an argument, Rev.  I just haven't really looked into the PATRIOT Act or other supposed infringements to see what's really going on there.  I've heard arguments on both sides, and I figure I really should have more of a grounding in law and in fourth amendment issues and such before judging.  So, I'm not going there yet. 

I just like the fact that your view of history doesn't start in 2001. Personal remark removed by fistful.

[Paddy]

I just like the fact that your view of history doesn't start in 2001.  Like some people we know.

Uh-huh.  Well, when you have to reach back 150 years and vilify Lincoln in some attempt to defend Bush, you've got a problem.  You'll understand that better when the next president(s) use Bush's excesses as a basis to take actions you won't like at all.

Governments are not in the habit of relinquishing power.  It's been that way since the Roman Empire.

Basically all of the likely candidates are typical politicians.  They will not give up any government powers, they will not return too many civil liberties, nor make significant cuts to government spending.

So wait until it's Hillary/Obama/Edwards/Kerry in the Whitehouse, then come talk to me.

[Len Budney]

Uh-huh.  Well, when you have to reach back 150 years and vilify Lincoln in some attempt to defend Bush, you've got a problem.

I must have missed something: how can you use Lincoln to defend Bush? Both suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned American citizens without charges or trial, etc. Lincoln was worse than Bush in that Bush hasn't shut down any newspapers yet. But as far as I can see they're peas in a pod--and both bad.

So wait until it's Hillary/Obama/Edwards/Kerry in the Whitehouse, then come talk to me.

I look forward to seeing the fun when Hillary gets her hands on the MCA and USA PATRIOT. All the right-wingers saying, "Dayum! I thought them laws only took away rights from furriners and ay-rabs! Where the hay does she get off wiretapping, arresting and taking away rights from armed white rednecks borned and bred in the you ess of AY?" 

The libertarian types will be saying, "I told you so!" From the next cell over, probably.

--Len.

[The Rabbi]

I must have missed something: how can you use Lincoln to defend Bush? Both suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned American citizens without charges or trial, etc. Lincoln was worse than Bush in that Bush hasn't shut down any newspapers yet. But as far as I can see they're peas in a pod--and both bad.

I must have missed where Bush suspended habeas corpus.  As for imprisoning American citizens, maybe you'd want to refer to the German saboteurs case, brought to the USSC in the 1940s.

[Werewolf]

Presidential Candidates and The Constitution / Bill of Rights.

Does it even matter to Americans who will uphold the constitution or are most people treating this like American Idol?

American Idol.

I lost faith in the electorate when not a few of the women I know told me they voted for Clinton because he was just sooooo good looking...

Makes me wonder if some hot babe ran if she could win the presidency because your average male voter would vote for her just because she was hot.

I'm tellin ya...

The American electorate is just getting...

Dumber and dumber and dumber as time goes on.

[RevDisk]

It's not an argument, Rev.  I just haven't really looked into the PATRIOT Act or other supposed infringements to see what's really going on there.  I've heard arguments on both sides, and I figure I really should have more of a grounding in law and in fourth amendment issues and such before judging.  So, I'm not going there yet. 

I just like the fact that your view of history doesn't start in 2001.  Like some people we know. 

I sincerely recommend you do.  While I acknowledge every President has likely signed away bits and pieces of our liberty, since 2001 the pace has been higher than normal.   Granted, this isn't WWII.  We're not opening concentration camps for people of the wrong ethnic group who did nothing wrong.  (Which I personally believe was more legal than the current 'ghost detainee' programs.)   Spend an afternoon reading highlights on the the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (which applies to US citizens), Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, etc.  I attended a seminar at Defcon just on the computer security related aspects of the PATRIOT Act, and it was rather staggering.  Due to its lengthy nature, it'd take about a week to read and properly understand.  Let alone research its implimentations and such.  The whole NSA domestic wiretapping issue is amusing because a lot of its 'legality' is classified.  Most investigations were dropped due to the classified nature.  Even DOJ OPR lawyers couldn't get clearances.

You don't have to be a lawyer to read the Constitution and understand it.  Sure, the volumes of case law is such that no living person could possibly be familiar with it, but you'd be surprised that generally our laws are not in foreign languages and can actually be read by a native English speaker.   

You are correct that my view of history does not start nor end with 2000 to present.  FISA always has been more or less a joke.  The only upside was a paper trail, even if the majority is classified.  The DMCA is just as great of an infringement on civil liberties as the Patriot Act.  etc etc.  However, past evils do not justify current evils.

[Perd Hapley]

Well, when you have to reach back 150 years and vilify Lincoln in some attempt to defend Bush, you've got a problem.  You'll understand that better when the next president(s) use Bush's excesses as a basis to take actions you won't like at all. 

Riley, it was not my purpose to defend Bush.  All I've done here is say that, if he is a villain, he is probably a lesser one.  And I don't know what good it does the nation to heap so much criticism on the man, when that can only lead to a Democratic administration. 

Please forgive me, but I have been taking out some frustrations on you, which was not fair.  You see, I've had my fill of personal remark removed by fistful.  Maybe I expect too much of people. 

But I can, with clear conscience, correct you on this point.  It is simply not reasonable to claim that rights can be infringed to "preserve the union," while saying that combating terrorism is not a "noble cause."  Think about this.  Many people, right or wrong, trace the loss of liberty in America directly to Lincoln's heavy-handed methods.  If they are right, Bush is really just a piker in the whole mess.  In any case, you can hardly excoriate Bush while giving Lincoln a pass. 

[Perd Hapley]

It's not an argument, Rev.  I just haven't really looked into the PATRIOT Act or other supposed infringements to see what's really going on there.  I've heard arguments on both sides, and I figure I really should have more of a grounding in law and in fourth amendment issues and such before judging.  So, I'm not going there yet. 

I sincerely recommend you do. 

Believe me, I will.  I'm not afraid to read the Constitution or have an opinion.  But just this forum is enough to teach a person that blabbing without a good grasp of the subject matter is stupid.  I've done it myself, and I've seen other people do it.  I've also seen smart folks make good arguments on both sides of the Patriot Act and related issues.  If you feel your grasp of the law is good enough to help you understand USA PATRIOT, good for you.  I just don't think I've gotten there yet.  There are other things for me to bone up on first.