Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: gondramB
Hmmm constitutional protections don’t apply if the President or another high official authorizes the action... I can see a dangerous precedent... what if a high official decides that gun rights or freedom of speech or the press don’t apply?

What's even worse is if put it in the context of being at war, especially since we are in a war that has no end, and we have liberals running things.

People may say that Bush's administration was trying to protect America, but if we accept that certain freedoms have to be given up for wartime reasons, and we are in a war without end, then we have, for all intents and purposes, permanently given up those freedoms.

It's compounded by the fact that liberals are running the White House and Congress these days. I don't trust them with that kind of power.
181 posted on 03/02/2009 11:23:05 PM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]


To: af_vet_rr

>>People may say that Bush’s administration was trying to protect America, but if we accept that certain freedoms have to be given up for wartime reasons, and we are in a war without end, then we have, for all intents and purposes, permanently given up those freedoms.<<

That’s the problem in a nutshell. It was unwise to look at these issues in the context of “do we like and/or trust President Bush43” - the actual question is “do we give up constitutional protects because somebody in government says we ought to?”


183 posted on 03/03/2009 2:18:08 AM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson