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.
Jefferson's carelessness with words, and modern appropriation of them, is strewn all over the place.
Please cite/source the TJ. (if Warner quoted correctly, that should be easy.)
Also, the only places we are constrained from posting full articles is the LA Slimes and the Washington Compost. You'll find you get better and more responses if you post the full article.
"The question you propose, whether circumstances do not sometimes occur, which make it a duty in officers of high trust, to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
From Thomas Jefferson To John B. Colvin Monticello, September 20, 1810
The Solicitor General position is appointed by the Governor, or his cabinet, I believe. It is not an elected position. Its the same as Ted Olson's position with GW in the federal government.
He should be fired immediately and banished from the country.
This means that all political power is inherent in the People. The People must delegate this power to government in order for it to be legitimate.
The Constitution is the charter that the People use to grant powers to government. Furthermore, it sets rules for the use of such powers, lest they be abused.
What legitimate claim to power can be made outside of it?
This man is doing nothing less than redesigning the basic structure of government. Government must derive its just powers from somewhere. If its powers are not derived from the consent of the governed as expressed through the Constitution, what are they derived from?????
So rather than work to remove the socialists that have infiltrated the system and caused it not to function in the best interests of the Republic, let's change the system by destroying it and let the maggots have a chance at a constitutional rewrite. Yeah sure. Real smart.
One first-year law student said she was outraged by the speech, which was sponsored by the Federalist Society, a student chapter of the national organization.
"I think the Constitution should be upheld all the time," she said.
This is the heart of what he said and the liberal reaction to it.
I have to agree with him. If someone has a nuke roaming around in your city, you don't worry if some judge doesn't like racial profiling. You look for the guy with a rag tied around his head.
The Courts have made an utter mess out of the whole area of searches and seizures. The modern interpretation has nothing to do with the Constitution anyway.
Let's say a cop "illegally" searches a car. Finds a body. Would any sane person have voted to ratify a Constitution that says the murderer gets to go free because some cop didn't follow some technicality?
Of course not. The murderer would go to jail and the cop would be punished. If what he did was bad enough, he'd go to jail too.
Warner's right. Sometimes, you gotta do what you gotta do. And if the terrorist was roaming around in the law student's home town, she'd agree with him.
I agree. But read what the man said. He said if a man has a nuke in your city, you find the nuke. You don't worry about search warrants. You don't worry about racial profiling. You find that nuke.
I have been consistant in my support for the Constitution. I always will be. But the man's right. You find the nuke. Because that is the number one duty of government -- to protect its citizens.
Tom was on the ball.
People should look at it this way. The Constitution does not allow us to fight a war unless it has been declared by the Congress. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor but our guys fought back. They didn't wait for a declaration of war. Of course the Constitution says they didn't have to.
But Dougout Doug did wait. Because of that, the chance the Phillipines had of hurting the Japanese before they landed was missed. Sure, MacAuthur (for once in his life) paid attention to the literal wording of the Constitution. But I think most people would agree that he should have bombed the Japs.
that is the number one duty of government -- to protect its citizens.
I disagree. The number one duty of government is to ensure freedom (although that job is certainly not exclusive to government). Although I will admit that your theory is much more popular today than mine. It is this fundamental change of people's perception of the proper role of government in a free society that is the cause of nanny type laws that now infest what was once a free country.
Well, no need to worry, folks....we haven't (as a country) scrupulously adhered to the written law (ie, Constitution) since the FDR years.
Sadly, it increasingly looks as if that's the case.
Imagine a politician openly claiming power outside the Constitution! What smug presumption!!! If we had any spine at all, this man would be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
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.