Posted on 04/12/2002 7:56:30 AM PDT by chuknospam
Warner says Constitution can be a luxury
By LOURDES BRIZ
Special to The Sun
When national security is threatened, there are times when the United States cannot afford the luxury of adhering to the Constitution, said Florida Solicitor General Tom Warner Thursday afternoon.
See the source URL for the rest of the article.
I would argue we never have.
Do you advocate passing legislation to suspend search and seizure precautions and requirements to allow unfettered search and seizure power at any time, place, and in any manner simply because there is a threat that someone might use a nuke?
Do you advocate disregarding the niceties of search and seizure precautions and requirements to allow unfettered search and seizure power on an ad hoc basis in the face of a viable threat that someone might use a nuke, and finding a way to forgive the intrusion afterward?
Or do you advocate something else entirely?
I can't find that requirement anywhere in the Constitution.
But there is no idication that he intends to make it in innocuous situations. Surely, you don't think that if a terrorist with a nuke was in your town, the government should have to get search warrants before they searced anywhere. That they should not be allowed to use racial profiling beacuse that has upset a judge somewhere when it was used in a dope smuggling case? All because you wouldn't want them to set a precident they could follow later.
No. You'd want them to find that bomb before it blew you and your family up. You'd be right too.
I'm not saying that Lincoln was right to suspend habeas corpus. But in cases of immediate danger to a large number of people, you do what needs to be done.
There you go talking like a sane person again.
But if some guy is willing to strap explosives around his waist and blow himself up to kill a few people, he isn't going to be running away from the nuke. He's going to sit there and guard it. Then when it goes off, he'll ride that baby to Allah and all those virgins.
You wouldn't be saying that if the guy was going to vaporize your kids. You'd want the bomb found. You wouldn't want people to fool around with search warrants. You wouldn't care if the cops used some racial profiling. You'd just want the bomb found so your kids didn't get blown up.
Thanks for posting the original TJ
Based on this, I'm sitting here trying to figure out why you chose Rule of Law as your username.
What horrors would we be willing to suffer in fighting a country that meant to overrun us and revoke our Constitution?
If such a nation had nukes and was willing to use them on us, would we surrender? Or would we fight, knowing full well that our decision to retain our Constitution would result in a nuclear attack?
Would you be willing to enter a battlefield to fight such an enemy, knowing your chances of survival were slim? Would you prevent your own family from going to this battlefield?
If you truly prize liberty for what its worth, you would accept such losses and make the sacrifice, as has been done before. Because our forefathers were brave enough to stake their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, we are free today.
So clearly the Constitution and liberty are worth more than life itself.
Now, what difference does it make if we ourselves destroy the Constitution, rather than some invading army? The practical difference is none. At the end of the day, we would have traded freedom for safety, and be living under tyranny just as sure as we would if we raised the white flag in submission to a foreign nation.
A free people can only be killed, but never enslaved. In old days people coined this idea as "Live Free or Die". If we were true Americans, that is what we would do.
Rule of Law said: You wouldn't be saying that if the guy was going to vaporize your kids. You'd want the bomb found. You wouldn't want people to fool around with search warrants. You wouldn't care if the cops used some racial profiling. You'd just want the bomb found so your kids didn't get blown up.
Yes, some of us would be saying that. To some of us, the Constitution, our way of life, and the "Rule of Law" is more important than our own life, our kids lives, or even a whole city of people's lives. The "some of us" probably include many of the several hundred thousand that take the oath every year to defend the Constitution, at the risk of their own lives. Some of us actually take our oaths seriously.
Somehow, Rule of Law, despite your nick, I'll bet you can't even conceive of this.
Disgusting.
While our Constitution is not a national suicide pact, it is the Law of the Land to be defended against all enemies, foreign anmd domestic. These defenders count in the tens of millions of Constitutionally armed citizens.
Whether murderous jihadist or scared statist, act to infringe on our God-given rights at your peril.
The man is not talking about destroying the Constitution. The man is talking about taking the steps needed to protect the American way of life. He's talking about not getting so bogged down in form that we allow what's really important to be destroyed.
Let's used Dugout Doug again. Doug had aircraft capable of attacking the Japanese invasion fleet. They were feuled up and ready to go as soon as they heard about Pearl Harbor. But Doug wouldn't allow them to attack because there had been no declaration of war against Japan. Japan destroyed most of those planes on the ground and was able to land virtually unopposed.
Perfect compliance with the form of the Constitution. But I'll bet if James Madison had been there, he would have told MacAurthur to sink as many Japanses ships as he could.
When the Constitution is seen as a list of suggestions when convenient, and outright ignored when expedient, it is indeed destroyed.
The man is talking about taking the steps needed to protect the American way of life.
The American way of life is not cowering on our knees in the face of danger. If we aren't known to value liberty over life, we are not worthy of the term American. It is precisely this unflinching devotion to liberty that strikes fear into our enemies. It is the darkest nightmare of tyrants, and makes them tread very carefully in our presence.
Let's used Dugout Doug again.
Yes, lets talk about Dugout Doug. Suppose Doug uses his planes and wins. I think he should. There isn't anything unconstitutional about that. Now, lets remember that this nation is rules by precedent more than anything else, and that those who would rather have no constitutional restraints on their power use precedent to their advantage.
So, Doug attacks. Later, his actions are wrongly used by those who would not have Congress hold the power to declare war. Another situation arises, where Congress should declare war. But the precedent has been set and war proceeds without the constitutionally mandated declaration of war.
So too it will be with your example. Say we decide to ignore the Constitution briefly at first, and catch this guy with the nuke. Do you think that's the last you'll see of that power used? I KNOW it isn't. Eventually anything that is considered dangerous would justify ignoring the 4th Amendment. Maybe you think this would only happen during wartime? Ask yourself: When will the war on terrorism be over? When will the war on drugs be over?
The answer is never, and that's when these 'emergency exceptions' to constitutional rule will end.
Your cure is worse than the problem.
Who cares? He's a doofus. His party affiliation is irrelevant.
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.