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

Skip to comments.

Conservatives Drop Their Love for the Constitution
reason.com ^ | December 6, 2011 | A. Barton Hinkle

Posted on 12/09/2011 7:04:01 PM PST by giotto

Edited on 12/10/2011 10:32:56 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

Santayana defined fanaticism as redoubling your effort while losing sight of your goal. America’s recent discussions about the war on terror would give him few grounds to change his view.

Several GOP presidential candidates have said they would support bringing back waterboarding, a practice the U.S. prosecuted as a war crime after WWII. Apparently it’s only torture when the other side does it.

Last week the Senate was consumed with debate over a defense bill. Among its provisions: an amendment by New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte to nullify an executive order banning torture. Another proposal: allowing U.S. citizens captured on U.S. soil to be held indefinitely without charge by the U.S. military. (An amendment to strike that language from the bill failed, despite the commendable support of Virginia Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb.) Yet another provision would require civilian authorities to hand over terrorism suspects to the military.

Supporters of the detention provision noted language stipulating that the “requirement” to detain a person in military custody “does not extend to citizens in the United States.” But as critics of the measure noted, there is a difference between what is required and what is allowed. The bill “does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely,” according to Rep. Justin Amash. Sen. Lindsey Graham put it more bluntly: the bill declares “that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and those suspected of terrorism can be held indefinitely without charge, “American citizen or not.”

Excerpt, read more at Reason.com


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; ibtz; ndaa; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
--Benjamin Franklin

We are fast approaching the point where we have neither liberty nor security.

1 posted on 12/09/2011 7:04:09 PM PST by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: giotto
I forgot to check the "This is an excerpt" box. Here's the link to the rest of the article:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/06/conservatives-drop-their-love-for-the-co

2 posted on 12/09/2011 7:07:35 PM PST by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: giotto

The constitution is not a suicide document.


3 posted on 12/09/2011 7:08:01 PM PST by Jonty30 (If a person won't learn under the best of times, than he must learn under the worst of times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: giotto

The pollies like power and the illusion of knowing better than we do what’s best for us.

Too many of the people don’t want the responsibility of freedom.

We need God to raise up a prophet. We’re in trouble.


4 posted on 12/09/2011 7:08:14 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Jesus, I trust in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: giotto
If they're "dropping their love for the Constitution" then they're no longer conservatives.

My guess, soon the only true Constitution-loving conservatives will be practicing Christians. Why? Because sooner or later, it comes down to either trusting man (government) or God (government-limiting Constitution).

5 posted on 12/09/2011 7:10:32 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: giotto

It makes too much sense to declare that the whole reason for this is that the Feds have imported lots of Mohammedans into this country, that if they were exported 99.8% of the threat would be gone, and then there would be no need to impose Big Brother restrictions on U.S. citizens our founders would never have tolerated (”Patriot Act”, strip searches of grandmothers at airports, warrantless wiretaps, etc. etc.)

Because it makes too much sense, the Republicrats will never do it. So expect more of the same.


6 posted on 12/09/2011 7:15:31 PM PST by SharpRightTurn ( White, black, and red all over--America's affirmative action, metrosexual president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: giotto

What piece of garbage article. Belongs in file 13.


7 posted on 12/09/2011 7:15:51 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
The constitution is not a suicide document.

Please cite for me, Article and Section, of the US Constitution that gives either the Legislative or the Executive branch the specific, enumerated power to strip American citizens of their 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights.

Thanks in advance.

L

8 posted on 12/09/2011 7:15:51 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

So in other words, NOT giving the president the power to disappear his political enemies, simply by labeling them “terrorists,” would be suicide? NOT strip searching 87 year old woman at airports would be suicide?


9 posted on 12/09/2011 7:16:21 PM PST by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

I assume you’ll be apologizing personally to the Japanese for their treatment during WWII.


10 posted on 12/09/2011 7:16:58 PM PST by Jonty30 (If a person won't learn under the best of times, than he must learn under the worst of times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
I assume you’ll be apologizing personally to the Japanese for their treatment during WWII.

If you're speaking of the American citizens of Japanese descent who were wrongfully stripped of their Constitutional rights and property by Roosevelt, you're damned right I will.

You should, too.

11 posted on 12/09/2011 7:18:39 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
The constitution is not a suicide document.

While the idea that waterboarding is torture is ridiculous, the quote "The constitution is not a suicide document" is a scary argument.

It presumes that the Constitution has problems that could get us killed, so it's OK to ignore these flaws if the need arises. That is exactly what the liberals argue. They think this "inherently flawed document" has to be ignored for the higher good of society.

If the Constitution could get us killed, then amend it! Once we justify violating the Constitution, then on what do we base the authority of the government? At that point, the government is acting without authority, and I do not trust the best government, let alone our government.

As for waterboarding, I know someone who was waterboarded by the US military. It was part of her training. So are these kooks who call it torture suggesting we're torturing our soldiers? If so, they should demand we stop torture during training.

12 posted on 12/09/2011 7:20:12 PM PST by ElectronVolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Emergency Powers
Over the years, Presidents have claimed to have emergency powers in times of crisis. These Inherent Powers have been used both at home and overseas. The most common use of emergency powers is to declare a state of emergency which allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to bypass normal administrative and jurisdictional rules. Declarations of emergency can also provide special federal aid such as during the Flood of 1993 along the Mississippi River or in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. President Abraham Lincoln used his emergency powers to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in Maryland during the American Civil War. President Harry Truman was also denied emergency powers by the Court in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer when he tried to nationalize the nation’s steel mills.

Got that off Wikipedia.


13 posted on 12/09/2011 7:20:22 PM PST by Jonty30 (If a person won't learn under the best of times, than he must learn under the worst of times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ElectronVolt

It’s definitely a balancing act.

If the constitution literally stands in the way of finding out that somebody is going to drop a nuke on New York city, what do you do?

At the same time, how do you prevent the seizure of rights from becoming permanent.


14 posted on 12/09/2011 7:23:17 PM PST by Jonty30 (If a person won't learn under the best of times, than he must learn under the worst of times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: giotto

Apparently it’s only torture when the other side does it.

Well duh, war crimes are only committed by the losing side. It’s always been thus.


15 posted on 12/09/2011 7:23:50 PM PST by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
Over the years, Presidents have claimed to have emergency powers in times of crisis.

Where exactly are these so called "emergency powers" enumerated in the Constitution? Article and Section if you please.

Until you can do that, every word you type is utter bull****.

I'll wait.

16 posted on 12/09/2011 7:23:58 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Youre welcome to show me that they cannot ever, even if it means the death of every US citizen, defend the country as needed.


17 posted on 12/09/2011 7:26:30 PM PST by Jonty30 (If a person won't learn under the best of times, than he must learn under the worst of times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Obviously, it has too do with navigable waters or interstate commerce. Oh, maybe the general welfare clause. It’s too the point that I wish the feds would just drop the whole constitution and just admit that they do things because they have the biggest army.


18 posted on 12/09/2011 7:27:45 PM PST by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
The constitution is not a suicide document.

That has yet to be seen. If I had been a delegate, I would have argued for a REQUIREMENT that any politician or government employee convicted of ANY crime, be hanged by the neck until dead.

That might have extended our most excellent run.

But as it is, the Constitution is pretty much a dead letter document, honored only in the breach.

I predict suicide for the former Republic, unless things change back to the founder's intent.

And if this one doesn't work out... we can write a new one, we have a history of doing that.

/johnny

19 posted on 12/09/2011 7:29:15 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina

And we all know how well that worked out.

20 posted on 12/09/2011 7:29:33 PM PST by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: giotto

constitution bump for later..........


21 posted on 12/09/2011 7:31:21 PM PST by indthkr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: giotto

New Orleans was a failure of the state and city governments. George Bush had pre-authorized any requested help by the state governor and city mayor.

Unfortunately neither requested any help.


22 posted on 12/09/2011 7:31:35 PM PST by Jonty30 (If a person won't learn under the best of times, than he must learn under the worst of times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

Just an analysis of the presidetial warpowers. If you read the document, you’ll find a part where it says that the president basically has unlimited authority to defend the country.


23 posted on 12/09/2011 7:33:07 PM PST by Jonty30 (If a person won't learn under the best of times, than he must learn under the worst of times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
Youre welcome to show me that they cannot ever, even if it means the death of every US citizen, defend the country as needed.

What does that mean? "...every US citizen..." IS the country. "They" exist, in theory, only to defend the right of those citizens to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Did you think the "country" means the federal government?

24 posted on 12/09/2011 7:36:46 PM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: giotto
I think I have a barton hinkle on my posterior. I'm going to remove it and sterilize the spot with alcohol.
26 posted on 12/09/2011 7:37:54 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

I meant the feds.


27 posted on 12/09/2011 7:41:31 PM PST by Jonty30 (If a person won't learn under the best of times, than he must learn under the worst of times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

Unlimited means without limit.

This does mean that it’s both focused inward and outward.


28 posted on 12/09/2011 7:43:39 PM PST by Jonty30 (If a person won't learn under the best of times, than he must learn under the worst of times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: giotto
Several GOP presidential candidates have said they would support bringing back waterboarding, a practice the U.S. prosecuted as a war crime after WWII. Apparently it’s only torture when the other side does it.

Any person that thinks waterboarding is a war crime is not worth listening to.

29 posted on 12/09/2011 7:47:16 PM PST by Ajnin (Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnocet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
Unlimited what?

The fed is at all times (supposed to be) limited by that enabling document, the Constitution. That is their authorization to act on out behalf.

30 posted on 12/09/2011 7:48:46 PM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

If you have a problem with presidential warpowers, don’t tell me about it. The Forefathers set up the document, not me.

All it says is that for the defense of the country, the president has unlimited power. It doesn’t say unlimited, in an outward direction but very limited in an inward direction. It just says unlimited.

I think you can figure out what that means.


31 posted on 12/09/2011 7:52:18 PM PST by Jonty30 (If a person won't learn under the best of times, than he must learn under the worst of times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: giotto

Well, A.Barton Hincle, I know what the A stands for.


32 posted on 12/09/2011 7:56:39 PM PST by muddler (Diligentia, Vis and Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
If you have a problem with presidential warpowers, don’t tell me about it. The Forefathers set up the document, not me.

What "presidential warpowers" exactly do you refer to?

33 posted on 12/09/2011 7:59:52 PM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SharpRightTurn
My ancestors in South Carolina tolerated shooting their neighbors down in cold blood back during the Revolution.

Later on other ancestors returned as a conquering army to burn the place to the ground.

Such are the usages of war.

What a lot of folks forget is that we are in a state of war with foreign barbarians and savages. They have friends in America who also deserve to die.

34 posted on 12/09/2011 8:01:07 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

So you’re citing justice.gov as an authority for emergency war powers. How about citing the constitution?


35 posted on 12/09/2011 8:01:44 PM PST by andyk (Tax credits == Welfare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: giotto

wouldn’t ususally waste time on this. but it is sad to see writing that screams of a person who can neither properly read or reason, holding forth on the genius of our founders.

where this person’s misunderstanding (giving the benefit of the doubt) is rooted includes failures to understand what a battlefield is, what a commander is, and what our founders defined as the separation of a hierachy of derived and implied powers is in the constitution (as established by our founders).

the problem is partially the statist smokescreen and the living and breathing standards wickedly applied by statists bent on the constitution’s destruction. perhaps a course in logic and a careful rereading is in order for this writer.


36 posted on 12/09/2011 8:02:34 PM PST by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dadfly
a person who can neither properly read or reason

Speak for yourself.

37 posted on 12/09/2011 8:11:04 PM PST by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: giotto

This guy who is upset at Muslim terrorists being held for the duration who may be technically citizens (born in the US but not loyal to it) probably thinks it was fine for Lincoln to imprison US citizens for the duration for defending their homes. (Of course the men Lincoln imprisoned did not regard themselves as citizens of the United States—but he did.)


38 posted on 12/09/2011 8:24:28 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: giotto

uh, excuse me, but this is called a *comment*, i.e., personal judgement based on fact, reason or opinion on the content of a posted article. i believe that is one of the purposes of FR. and i always speak for myself. but good luck to you.


39 posted on 12/09/2011 8:28:11 PM PST by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: giotto

Oh the truth. And here we are following the sames cycle as always in the election process as well. Conservatives start out with “I’ll Never vote for him”. But in the end they are attacking anyone who won’t. It is so predictable that I even told friends it would happen, and it did. And it will get much worse. The same cycle of human ignorance and stupidity that I have watched over and over these past 13 years.

There is the old saying about fooling me once....Twice....But you could fool most (so called) conservatives a thousand times it seems, and they still would not catch on. Human nature itself has rendered me with a feeling of hopelessness for the future. The brilliant people of the past no longer exist.


40 posted on 12/09/2011 8:34:15 PM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: giotto
Apparently [waterboarding]’s only torture when the other side does it.

Actually, it's only a violation of the Geneva Conventions when done to an enemy who has agreed to abide by them himself, which doesn't include a terrorist head honcho and unlawful enemy combatant who has information about possible future terrorist attacks.

Reason has lost all semblance of rationality.

41 posted on 12/09/2011 8:42:36 PM PST by Hunton Peck (See my FR homepage for a list of businesses that support WI Gov. Scott Walker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: giotto
Leave it to the big-(L)ibertarians at Reason to confuse the truly important issue of Habeus Corpus with the non sequitor of Waterboarding.

At least 3-4 thousand men of the US Military have been subjected to Waterboarding by other members of the US Military in training.

Including myself, (thus the tag after my name).

It's not torture, it's training for those who must kill and hope not to be caught.

42 posted on 12/09/2011 8:48:18 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dadfly

I was referring to your use of “or” with “neither.” It’s not just a grammatical error; it’s also a logical error. If you’re going to pick nits with someone on their logic, first make sure your own is impeccable.


43 posted on 12/09/2011 8:53:52 PM PST by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin

This was well wrangled over in the oughties. The GTMO version of this is more psychological than physical, involving a cloth which blocks any of the water from getting into the “torturee’s” mouth or nose. IIRC in WWII the Axis did not bother with the cloth, it was literally an open air drowning.


44 posted on 12/09/2011 8:56:54 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
If you have a problem with presidential warpowers, don’t tell me about it. The Forefathers set up the document, not me.

And that document also spells out the conditions under which he may use those warpowers--namely, a DECLARED WAR. None of the so-called wars we are currently engaged in are declared wars. In fact the "War on Terror" is not even against an actual entity. If jihadists are our enemy, then why not declare war on jihadists? By defining it so loosely, anyone who is perceived as a terrorist is the enemy and therefore subject to the whimsical use of these warpowers by a vindictive, partisan president. That "terrorist" could be you or me.

45 posted on 12/09/2011 9:11:22 PM PST by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Article 3 Section 3 - Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
46 posted on 12/09/2011 9:18:48 PM PST by Ceebass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
Well thanks for playing our little game. You've admitted you can't find a shred of Constitutional authorization for this Bill you've championed.

Therefore you're an Enemy of the United States Constitution, and Enemy of the American people, and have put yourself in direct conflict with the stated purpose or this venerable Forum.

Congratulations. Not many people have managed to do so much in so little time.

Now, GTFOOH you anti-Constitutional piece of ****. Merry Christmas.

47 posted on 12/09/2011 9:25:53 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
If you have a problem with presidential warpowers, don’t tell me about it. The Forefathers set up the document, not me.

Where exactly in the Constitution is that spelled out? Which Article and Section specifically says that the President spells out these "unlimited" powers?

It just says unlimited.

Where exactly in the Constitution does the word "unlimited" appear? In which Article and Section is it used?

Take your time. I'll wait.

L

48 posted on 12/09/2011 9:32:45 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
All it says is that for the defense of the country, the president has unlimited power."

So the President could bang your wife, daughter, or son up the b*** in the name of National Defense? Is that what you're saying?

49 posted on 12/09/2011 9:41:43 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: giotto

sorry bud. no time for the grammar, punctuation police. living my life. next time i’m back in grad school i’ll concern myself with that stuff.


50 posted on 12/09/2011 9:42:58 PM PST by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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