House Votes To Curb Patriot Act

[Toad]

Originally posted by Sandman
And I agree... the Town Hall Meetings are little more than show, but you and I are paying for it. I wonder what the budget is for presidential propaganda.

It's probably about the same as it was for other "media age" Presidents that held a similar number of TH's, given inflation. I have no idea though.

We're paying for his whole administration; I don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth either.

[Toad]

Originally posted by rpm
My point is we need a balance, especially in the SCOTUS.

[/b]

This is where we disagree. I see no need to get away from the Constitution.

Take the medical marijuana case as you say. Clearly, the usually vilified "stricts", Rehnquist and Thomas, joined by O'Connor (middle road) were in the right there. I really don't get where the "libs" would allow the government to intrude into State's Rights to that degree unless they are just all for "all power to the government".

I see no danger in all "stricts" on the court. Indeed, I feel safer if it's that way. The bloody government has it's nose to far in our business already. The Founders hated that exact situation and wrote accordingly.

 I hope Congress will live up to your expectations.

They probably won't because I have high expectations. However, I hope for another "sunset" provision where they must review again in a relatively short window.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
One thing is certain, the next attack people will be asking why the Gov't didn't prevent it.  Some will say the Patriot act wasn't strict enough...and garanteed the critizism will come from the left side of the isle...

Please expand on this. I'm sure you have some logic to explain why libs will be crying for a stricter Patriot act. I'm sure this wasn't just a jibe at the left..... that would be wrong.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Please expand on this. I'm sure you have some logic to explain why libs will be crying for a stricter Patriot act. I'm sure this wasn't just a jibe at the left..... that would be wrong.

It will be the same unreality-based liberals whine about the Bush administration's failure to gather intelligence and prevent terrorism.  They won't be crying for stricter, they'll be pointing a finger..Kennedy comes to mind...

[Sandman]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Please expand on this. I'm sure you have some logic to explain why libs will be crying for a stricter Patriot act. I'm sure this wasn't just a jibe at the left..... that would be wrong.

I'm betting that the next big terrorist attack in our country will again be something that no one (or damn few) predict. It is the nature of the game.

The Patriot Act is typical of our goverment.... they're trying to prevent the last attack, win the last war, etc.

[Stringer]

Or they can get on the Capital steps again and sing God Bless America.....I remember watching that and saying this is the best  we get from our elected officials...this is their best, first response....

[midnight Target]

I have no doubt that the attacks on the President will be loud and nasty. I also have no doubt that not a single liberal will stand up and say "If only you had restricted more of my rights!!"

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Stringer
Or they can get on the Capital steps again and sing God Bless America.....I remember watching that and saying this is the best  we get from our elected officials...this is their best, first response....

wrong key?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Sandman

The Patriot Act is typical of our goverment.... they're trying to prevent the last attack, win the last war, etc.

Its called knee-jerk reaction.  Look at what Roosevelt did with the American Japanese...

Either way, it looks like many of us agree its over the top as it is...and yes, nothings been done about our borders.

[Aubrey]

Originally posted by JB88
i

the government is not the united states...the people that make it up are.  the government is really just and ambassador and a representative to those people rather than what has quickly become a babysitter, a father figure and most recently a moral fist.


a government of the people and for the people.

as americans we would be best served if we never forgot that.

without due process we are no longer within the reasonable frame of our endeavor and the terrorists really have won.

our freedoms and our traditions have built a great nation that is envied by our enemies....so why in the heck should we take a page from thier book to combat them?  dont we in essence become them?

QUOTE]

I agree with the above.

I am a Veteran of 10 yrs service, so no running me down as an america hater, or some commie lib.

I love this country I also think the rights we have as individuals are the most important thing we possess. With those rights comes risk and responsibility. every person that goes to work and lives thier life in accordance with our laws and freedoms does more good than all the time I spent in uniform and in the military.

The guy that calls in the tip, the guy that walks a beat,  the guy that teaches the children, the guy that stands up and shouts somthing is wrong, when everyone else is shouting it is right. those are the true heroes, they are the ones WE THE PEOPLE have set up a system for.

When we allow a government to spy on them and have no accountability we do a diservice to them and to ourselves. all in the name of safety. If that is safe then I would rather be held at gunpoint everyday; at least I would know where I stand.

The Social contract that enables our society to work is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those documents hold the power given to it by THE PEOPLE. Government has taken more power from the people becuase the people have , in thier fear, given it up without comment. As those fears recede the people should should grab that power back.

Government by its nature never wants to give up power that has been given to it. We need to curtail this act now before it is used against someone that is innocent.  Once they are labled bad guy they are done.  

The patriot act is to much power for anyone to have.  I do not even find it patriotic.  Right now people may be acting responsible, but someday someone won't.

History is replete with examples of what folks do motivated out of fear. I do not want my sons and daughter to live in fear of thier government. The chance a government that rukes them will act irrsposible and harm them has to be greater than thier chances of getting offed in a terrorist act.  

My 2 cents I may be wrong but that is they way I feel and I can only live acting upon the assumption I am right until it is proved to me otherwise.

[cpxxx]

The problem with laws that step on people's rights and freedoms even if enacted for good reasons at the time is that they may one day be used by a government for no good reason other than to stay in power.

 A law enacted to deal with Middle Eastern extremists, might if left unaltered, one day be used against Middle Western conservatives.

That's the danger.

[ET]

I have just read the book "Constitutional Chaos" by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano of Fox News. It is an interesting read and he explains how our own government from prosucutors to judges are violating different parts of the Constitution.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Toad
This is where we disagree. I see no danger in all "stricts" on the court. Indeed, I feel safer if it's that way.  

So you favor a totalitarian form of government where anyone that disagrees with the state is held in contempt? A one party system where the candidates are elected by 99.9% of the vote and the .01% are beheaded would be best in your view?

Seems to me that we have always fought against that thruout history. The Revolutionary War versus King George. World War II versus Hirohito and Hitler. The Cold War versus the Communists and most recently The Gulf Wars versus Saddam. They all had a totalitarian form of government and judiciary system. Why even have appeals courts anyway? Once you are found guilty that's it, no appeals. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, go directly to Gitmo? That's the American way?

God help us all if that happens.

[Toad]

Come now, where did I say any of what you just posted at all?

What you just posted is a near-perfect example of a Strawman argument.

I said I favored Strict Contstructionists on the Supreme Court. How did you ever twist that into what you just posted?

I mean "strict Constructionist" in the sense that Jefferson interpreted the Constitution. Example being the Bank of the United States that came up while he was Secretary of State.

More definitively I like this quote from Jefferson:

"In questions of power, then," Jefferson declared in his draft of the Kentucky Resolution, "let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of powers which that instrument gives."

[rpm]

Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning of "all stricts".

Clearly, the usually vilified "stricts", Rehnquist and Thomas, joined by O'Connor (middle road) were in the right there. I really don't get where the "libs" would allow the government to intrude into State's Rights to that degree unless they are just all for "all power to the government".

I see no danger in all "stricts" on the court. Indeed, I feel safer if it's that way.

I was just playing out that theory and it's concequences.

I still feel the SCOTUS should be an even mix of liberals, conservatives and middle of the road. Balance.