Posted on 04/12/2002 7:56:30 AM PDT by chuknospam
So you'd rather that you, your family, and 2 million Americans be vaporized than the government violate the "constitutional rights" of a murdering terrorist?
What about the rights of the two million Americans? Don't their rights count for anything? Because if they're dead, they don't have any rights anymore.
Look, I don't trust the government as far as I could kick Ted Kennedy -- and man I'd like to see how far I could kick the fat, drunk SOB. But I happen to live within the blast area for Target #1. From where I sit, if the government finds out that there's a nuke in the city, they'd better not waste time with paperwork. They'd better find that bomb.
That's a rather interesting mis-interpretation. I'd rather there were no mad bomber. I'd rather that Constitutionally-proper police methods catch them before they kill. I'd rather that you not give the government the authority to violate anyone's rights, because once they violate someone's rights with our permission, then they will violate everyone's rights. I'd rather that loaded questions like these were outlawed. *grin*
You seem to be giving me the classic choice: Liberty or Security. I would tend to agree with Ben Franklin on that score. I will never give my consent to become a slave, no matter how many of my family members and countrymen you can 'off' into your responses (2 million, 20 million, 200 million, 2 billion), because government works that way in reverse (if they'll give up the Constitution to protect 2 million, how about 200 thousand, 2 thousand, 2 hundred, 2 dozen).
No, thanks, never. Government can never be allowed to act in violation of anyone's rights, for any reason. In the 20th Century, 100 million souls were taken by their own governments for that erroneous judgement. Those individuals who act unConstitutionally for the rights reasons (and voluntarily subject themselves to the consequences), however, shall forever be honored.
Fat fingers, can't type. Old eyes, can't proofread.
No. Not the choice between liberty and security. The choice between form and substance.
Is the government protecting your liberty by filling out paperwork while a nutcase sets off a nuke next to your house? Of course not. If you're dead, you don't have liberty. Sure, they've got the form right. But they completely missed on substance.
In a situation like the one described in the article, the government has to decide how best to protect the liberty of the people. The man is saying that he will go for substance over form. You say that you'd rather he go for form rather than substance.
Wasn't it the Pharisees who exalted form over substance?
billbears, the way I understand these words, it means that if war is to be declared, or if an army is to be raised, these tasks fall under the powers given to the Legislative branch. But it does not say that no army shall be raised unless a war is declared, or that Congress shall authorize no use of military force unless war is declared. It says no such thing. Hence, unless one reads into the Constitution something that isn't there, a declaration of war is not required by the Constitution. Now, as Bill O'reilly says, where am I wrong?
Now you are saying, "The government probably couldn't catch the terrorists anyway, so they shouldn't even try."
Let me say it again. DEAD PEOPLE DON'T HAVE LIBERTY!
You do undersatnd that don't you? If you're dead, you have no Constitutional rights. If you're dead, you have no freedom.
Now the government's primary job is to protect your freedom. Agree so far?
Ok, in the situation outlined in the article -- a terrorist with a nuke in a major city -- how can the government best protect the liberty of the citizens who are about to be killed?
You contend that the best way to protect their liberty is to fill out paperwork while the terrorist kills everyone. Does this really protect their liberty? Of course not, because DEAD PEOPLE DON'T HAVE LIBERTY.
Warner is saying that in order to protect the liberty of the citizens of that city, the government needs to keep them alive. So, instead of worrying about paperwork, they would search for the guy with the nuke. That's all the man is saying.
He's not saying that the Constitution should be thrown out. He's merely saying that in certain dire emergencies, protecting the lives of the citizenry must come before filling out paperwork.
Wrong again. I never said "don't try", I said try to keep the effort Constitutional. Stop misconstruing my statements, please.
Let me say it again. DEAD PEOPLE DON'T HAVE LIBERTY! You do undersatnd that don't you? If you're dead, you have no Constitutional rights. If you're dead, you have no freedom. Now the government's primary job is to protect your freedom. Agree so far?
Nope. You say: government's job is to protect freedom, and the dead have no freedom. The logical summation is that government must protect us from death. Therefore, you make every death a failure of government. This simply is not so. 9-11 was not the government's fault. My grandmother's lung cancer was not the result of government failure. OJ Simpson's ex-wife is not dead due to someone holding back police enforcement.
Ok, in the situation outlined in the article -- a terrorist with a nuke in a major city -- how can the government best protect the liberty of the citizens who are about to be killed? You contend that the best way to protect their liberty is to fill out paperwork while the terrorist kills everyone. Does this really protect their liberty? Of course not, because DEAD PEOPLE DON'T HAVE LIBERTY.
Having the authority and power to protect Liberty is NOT the same as having the power and authority to prevent all crime, no matter how heinous. Government can best protect our Liberty by adhering to the Constitution. That's explicitly why the Founders created a SMALL, WELL-DEFINED federal government, and said NOTHING about preventing crimes before they can happen. (Crime actually existed back then, so they were aware of its existence, FYI.) The best way to protect Liberty is to adhere to those wise Constitutional principles. It was never meant as a guarantee against death, but only as a guarantee that those who would violate your right to Life would be punished and/or deterred from a repeated offense.
I hope that our Constituionally-limited police forces can catch the mad bombers before they strike, but I will never blame them and call them failures if they don't, because America will not stand for the type of Big Brother authoritarianism that would be required for such guarantees. If this is what you desire most, then please, by all means, move to China. They are probably better at crime-prevention than any other nation on earth, and they have the kind of law-enforcement that you seem to be calling for.
Warner is saying that in order to protect the liberty of the citizens of that city, the government needs to keep them alive. So, instead of worrying about paperwork, they would search for the guy with the nuke. That's all the man is saying.
Warner is a moron, and is advocating the repeal of the basis of the Constitution. There are enough officers to do both, and one fast fax or phone call from a behind-the-scenes officer will put a fresh new Constitutionally-mandated court-order into the on-site officer's hands as quick as can be. Take a minute to look for smarter alternatives before you support the destruction of the greatest governmental document in the history of the planet, okay?
He's not saying that the Constitution should be thrown out. He's merely saying that in cetain dire emergencies, protecting the lives of the citizenry must come before filling out paperwork.
Yes, he is. He's floating a trial balloon to find out how to repeal the Constitutional limits on government with our approval. It won't be thown out, it will just be comfortably ignored, now with your blessings... but not mine.
If you give government the authority to bypass the Constitution to save lives (or any other reason), then you given them the power to violate all of your other rights at will, whether you are a mad bomber, a citizen with a really nice house or car, a family who thinks a commune in Waco would be a really neat place to live, or maybe even a child whose dog they just shot. Maybe you need to read this quote again,
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
-Patrick Henry
I would never put this guy Warner in the same context as Thomas Jefferson.
I saw the title of the post and thought it was about RINO John Warner of VA who trashed the Constitution just the other week with his CFR vote.
Friend, you ought to pay more attention to the facts when you start making accusations.
I have not argued that the federal government should pass any such laws. In fact, I have been steadfast in arguing that the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to make any such law.
The federal government does not have any form of generalized police power. The Constitution gives them the authority to outlaw treason, forgery of money, and piracy on the high seas. That's it. (Except of course in DC and the US territories.) I don't even know if they have the authority to outlaw espionage -- at least during peacetime.
You need to get your facts straight before you go spouting off your mouth.
First of all, it is plain that you know virtually nothing about the Constitution. Warner is not advocating the repeal of the basis of the Constitution. The "Constitutional Rights' you are so passionate about are not contained in the Constitution at all. These are judicially created doctrines that were not part of the original understanding of the people who adopted the Constitution and that do not even legitimately apply to the states. At least one of thse doctrines is no more than two to three years old. (The prohibition against "profiling".)
Also, I do not argue that the government should attempt to keep your grandmother from dying of cancer. The difference between someone dying of cancer and an attack on the United States by a foreign power is so great that it should be obvious to anyone. Even a member of the NEA.
But I do not think there is any way to convince you. No sane person would advocate letting millions of Americans die in order to do some paperwork. Since that is exactly what you have advocated, continued discussion is pointless.
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.