• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do the Principles of the Constitution Even Matter Anymore?

Read the intro and vote accordingly


  • Total voters
    11
I don't really take much exception to that since it was said in the heat of the moment under intense questioning of his authority as commander in chief where the Patriot Act was concerned.

You shouldn't. You should take exception to his years of treating it like toliet paper. But I suppose we can blame Cheney for that. Bush was always more of a tool.
 
Sure is a good thing we have those courts to rule when the president does something blatantly unconstitutional, otherwise we'd have to worry about the chief executive doing things like ordering torture, destroying mountains of questionably incriminating emails, selectively enforcing the laws passed by congress and refusing to elucidate just what the **** he's been doing to the people this republic had empowered to investigate potential malfeasance. "Nu-uh! Executive privilege!"

Nice to know that all these things get the constitution's stamp of approval, and that this was exactly how the founding fathers intended our country to run.



jallman said:
It was George Bush and he said "it's just a goddamned piece of paper".

I don't really take much exception to that since it was said in the heat of the moment under intense questioning of his authority as commander in chief where the Patriot Act was concerned.

Isn't it the president's job to uphold the constitution? 'Cuz I'm pretty sure there's something about that in the oath one takes to become the president. Hasn't every member of the armed forces sworn defend, from enemies foreign and domestic, that "goddamned piece of paper"? And don't they swear to do that even before swearing to obey the commander in chief?

The president saying the constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper" is tantamount to the pope saying the bible is just a goddamned book. The fact that he said it in the heat of the moment is a very good indication of where his base impulses lead him when not he doesn't exert the effort to moderated them.
 
Sure is a good thing we have those courts to rule when the president does something blatantly unconstitutional, otherwise we'd have to worry about the chief executive doing things like ordering torture, destroying mountains of questionably incriminating emails, selectively enforcing the laws passed by congress and refusing to elucidate just what the **** he's been doing to the people this republic had empowered to investigate potential malfeasance. "Nu-uh! Executive privilege!"

Nice to know that all these things get the constitution's stamp of approval, and that this was exactly how the founding fathers intended our country to run.


Isn't it the president's job to uphold the constitution? 'Cuz I'm pretty sure there's something about that in the oath one takes to become the president. Hasn't every member of the armed forces sworn defend, from enemies foreign and domestic, that "goddamned piece of paper"? And don't they swear to do that even before swearing to obey the commander in chief?

The president saying the constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper" is tantamount to the pope saying the bible is just a goddamned book. The fact that he said it in the heat of the moment is a very good indication of where his base impulses lead him when not he doesn't exert the effort to moderated them.

Guess what? It is just a goddamned piece of paper. And the Bible is just a book. It's what's done with the words that matter and I don't see where the pres did anything to damage those words.
 
Guess what? It is just a goddamned piece of paper. And the Bible is just a book. It's what's done with the words that matter and I don't see where the pres did anything to damage those words.
The outrage of the left is selective - when their people trample the constitution, they cheer it on.

But, you knew that. :2wave:
 
The constitution has been under fire all through the Reagan year and the George Bush years.

Look at this terrible expensive war, which benefits nothing to the USA.
Look at our horrible national debt the greatest in history. We are partially owned by China now. All thanks to Bush.

We are holding thousands of people without a trial, which the constitution is against. We are losing our freedom of our 1st Amendment, Bush hated it when we the people of the USA did not agree with him while he f***ed up everything

The GOP has practically destroyed the united States and you make the dumb statement that the Constitution is under attack from Liberals. Take your head from the sand and start looking around.

The GOP is not what it use to be. I was registered and an active Republican until the second term of Reagan. The hand writing was on the wall and it was filling the Walls with BS. Conservative use to be something to be proud of. What the heck is happening to America? It is like watching a many years long bad movie in the television, which started with Reagan.

American will not be ruled by Corporate CEO dictator no matter how much Bush and his buddies want this.

We live in a world where Liberals have become the traditional conservatives and the GOP has become radicalized to the extreme.

We need to abandon the World Trade Organization, and NAFTA, and start taking care of Americans and America.

God Bless America, and protect us from the Evil of the Radicalized Right Wingers.

Thank you for this wonderfuly non-insightful, hyper partisan, hate filled, completely and utterly off topic rant. Contributed wonderfully to the topic. Have anything to say about the constitutional amendment being talked about or are you not finished with your quota of "randomly fill up a thread with crazy hyper partisan rantings" yet?

A. See the 10th Amendment. The Constitution is a strict enumeration of powers. What is not included in it is off-limits to the federal government to decide. Nowhere does it include any mention of dictating to the states how to fill vacancies.

HOWEVER, the constitution does set down ways in which one can AMEND it to add additional constitutional rights and edicts. So aquapub, do you subscribe to the beliefs and ideals of the constitution that it is a document that can be amended to include new principles and erase old principles if it is shown to be the will of the people by passing the needed requirements listed in said constitution?

If so, then supporting a push for this constitutional amendment is not in and of itself against the constitutional spirit because it is doing so through a method set out by the constitution.

Now, I could perhaps agree with you that it violates the theory behind some portions of the constitution, but even that is questionable as the constitution DID give some rights to the federal government over the state so its hard to say that its against constitutional theory to well...give rights to the government instead of the state.

All that being said, I am against this amendment and hope it never passes.

The fact that the government can listen into my conversations at any given moment without my consent kinda.... well... bugs the **** out of me.

One small step, right?

Problem with facts is they need to be well, facts. The government can't listen to your conversations at "any given moment". And in regards to consent, they could listen into your conversations without your consent since dating back into the 1970's and earlier.
 
I think that alot of people here are forgetting something.

Our government is a 3 part system of which only one part has employees that are appointed, the rest is voted on. (except in special cases)

Executive: President, elected every 4 years by the majority of people in the US. They elect the person that they believe reflects their desires the most.

Legislative: Senate, House, elected every 2 years by the majority of the people in each state that they come from. They elect the person that they believe reflects their desires the most.

Judicial: Judges of SCOTUS appointed. Serves for a life time unless they retire or are retired forcefully due to misconduct on their part. They are appointed by the very people that are elected by the citizens of the US.

The whole point what what I just said should be evident by now. But incase it isn't...

It is the PEOPLE that rule this country. It is the PEOPLE who guides this country in the direction that it goes. It is the PEOPLE that enable things like the Patriot Act. If we the people do not think that the person that we elect is doing the job that we want them to do then we have a right to elect someone else that does do what we want. And the new person that is elected has the right to try to get rid of any act accomplished by the previous occupant of <insert government seat here>.

So when things don't go the direction that you thought that they would go when you elected that person then you only have yourself to blame. You're the one that put that person in office that allowed things like the Patriot Act. While yes that person is to be held accountable for their actions so do you. You let it happen. Remember that there are ways to get your voice heard without being directly in the government. And you can bet that when enough people get together something will happen.
 
The outrage of the left is selective - when their people trample the constitution, they cheer it on.

But, you knew that. :2wave:

Just so we're clear, I'm an equal opportunity hater. GWB just happens to be the most recent blunder in constitutional misrepresentation.

<------------------
 
Problem with facts is they need to be well, facts. The government can't listen to your conversations at "any given moment". And in regards to consent, they could listen into your conversations without your consent since dating back into the 1970's and earlier.

What the hell part of that do you think would make me feel any better about the situation?

The Patriot act just gave them "Reason" if you will.
 
What the hell part of that do you think would make me feel any better about the situation?

No clue. If one is prone to paranoia I can understand it can be a rather unnerving thought. I can also think of the extremely large amoutn of crime that has been stopped in part due to wire tapping over the past 4 decades and the thought of a large amount of those going unsolved also is a bit unnerving.

The Patriot act just gave them "Reason" if you will.

I'd anxiously wait to hear which section of the Patriot Act specifically just gives the government blanket reason to listen in on anyone at any time for any reason.

The problem with Hyperbole when you're using it in a serious manner is that when you get called to actually prove it you either have to face up to being extremely hyperbolic or flail around while attempting to skirt having to answer.
 
I'd anxiously wait to hear which section of the Patriot Act specifically just gives the government blanket reason to listen in on anyone at any time for any reason.
For the most part, the Patriot Act extended power the government already had to cover the subject of terrorism.

If you didn't complain about that power - before - the Patriot Act...
 
No clue. If one is prone to paranoia I can understand it can be a rather unnerving thought. I can also think of the extremely large amoutn of crime that has been stopped in part due to wire tapping over the past 4 decades and the thought of a large amount of those going unsolved also is a bit unnerving.

Knowing your privacy is not of your own control doesnt bother you then? Well, different strokes I suppose. Said it twice in this thread, might as well go for #3 to drive it home. "One Small Step..."



I'd anxiously wait to hear which section of the Patriot Act specifically just gives the government blanket reason to listen in on anyone at any time for any reason.

The problem with Hyperbole when you're using it in a serious manner is that when you get called to actually prove it you either have to face up to being extremely hyperbolic or flail around while attempting to skirt having to answer.


Preemptive victory dances aren't very becoming.

The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title II is titled "Enhanced Surveillance Procedures" and covers all aspects of the surveillance of suspected terrorists, those suspected of engaging in computer fraud or abuse, and agents of a foreign power who are engaged in clandestine activities. It primarily made amendments to FISA and the ECPA, and many of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act reside in this title. In particular, the title allows government agencies to gather "foreign intelligence information" from both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, and changed FISA to make gaining foreign intelligence information the significant purpose of FISA-based surveillance, where previously it had been the primary purpose

Title II established three very controversial provisions: "sneak and peek" searches, roving wiretaps and the ability of the FBI to gain access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens. The so-called "sneak and peek" law allowed for delayed notification of the execution of search warrants. The period before which the FBI must notify the recipients of the order was unspecified in the Act — the FBI field manual says that it is a "flexible standard"[49] — and it may be extended at the court's discretion.[50] These sneak and peek provisions were struck down by judge Ann Aiken on September 26, 2007 after a Portland attorney, Brandon Mayfield was wrongly jailed because of the searches. The court found the searches to violate the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Roving wiretaps are wiretap orders that do not need to specify all common carriers and third parties in a surveillance court order. These are seen as important by the Department of Justice because they believe that terrorists can exploit wiretap orders by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones,[53] while opponents see it as violating the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment.

So, for a direct tap, or hell, even an entire "Sneak peak" into my life, all they have to do is say "we have suspicion that he is a terrorist/is collaborating with terrorists." No proof necessary, just based on suspicion MY privacy is out the window.

Yeah, that bugs me. Where does it go from here?
 
Last edited:
So, for a direct tap, or hell, even an entire "Sneak peak" into my life, all they have to do is say "we have suspicion that he is a terrorist/is collaborating with terrorists." No proof necessary, just based on suspicion MY privacy is out the window.

Yeah, that bugs me. Where does it go from here?

I'm sure you've heard of the term "probable cause"? Those two words allows any policman to go into your home weather they have a warrent or not. So whats the diff?

Note I'm playing devils advocate here...I personally don't like the Patriot Act.
 
I'm sure you've heard of the term "probable cause"? Those two words allows any policman to go into your home weather they have a warrent or not. So whats the diff?
Remember too that the requirement for a warrant only applies to 'unreasonable' searches and siezures.
 
I'm sure you've heard of the term "probable cause"? Those two words allows any policman to go into your home weather they have a warrent or not. So whats the diff?

Note I'm playing devils advocate here...I personally don't like the Patriot Act.

Should that have been brought up earlier I would have addressed it as well.

I am not in favor of my privacy being invaded for little to no reason. Right now the FBI can go through datacenters and rifle through your box without asking, or even telling you afterwards. I was part of a private video game server staff for a while, and we ended up moving our boxes to Canada for that very reason. We had nothing to hide, but the fact that we had no say in who did or did not have access to what information we had on there, or even being informed of the matter, was just... upsetting.
 
Remember too that the requirement for a warrant only applies to 'unreasonable' searches and siezures.

And that is exactly what the problem for many is. What one person deems "unreasonable" another person deems OK.
 
And that is exactly what the problem for many is. What one person deems "unreasonable" another person deems OK.
Its not really a problem -- over time, a reasonably clear line has been drawn.

The point, of course, is that not EVERY search need have a warrant behind it.
 
And that is exactly what the problem for many is. What one person deems "unreasonable" another person deems OK.

Of course.

I don't see it reasonable that our government is able to dig as they please based on a "suspicion". To me it's just another step taken to trample our liberty.

:shrug:
 
Of course.
I don't see it reasonable that our government is able to dig as they please based on a "suspicion". To me it's just another step taken to trample our liberty.
I'd say thet depends entirely on what they base that 'suspicion' on.
 
I'd say thet depends entirely on what they base that 'suspicion' on.

You could say that.

However, it's very broad. I could call you a terrorist and you could be searched based on what I said. IF they felt like it. That's what bugs me.

It may just be needless paranoia, but I just can't shake the sense that it doesnt end here.
 
Knowing your privacy is not of your own control doesnt bother you then? Well, different strokes I suppose. Said it twice in this thread, might as well go for #3 to drive it home. "One Small Step..."

In some ways, yes it does.

I also have no desire to live in a country of anarchy.

In general we as citizens give up a bit of freedom in exchange for security. Old Ben's notion isn't a bad one in a general sense, but I didn't see Franklin proposing that there should be no counstable or police and that the government shouldn't bother having an executive to enforce laws.

I do believe that the government should have ways to do survelliance and investigations into people. I also think these things should have checks and balances in place to keep them from being horribly abused, especially on a large scale.

Preemptive victory dances aren't very becoming.

USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, for a direct tap, or hell, even an entire "Sneak peak" into my life, all they have to do is say "we have suspicion that he is a terrorist/is collaborating with terrorists." No proof necessary, just based on suspicion MY privacy is out the window.

Yeah, that bugs me. Where does it go from here?

They are when you know how its going to go ;)

Every one of those provisions you stated before must go before some kind of checks and balances before going. A member of government law enforcement agencies can't just go "Hm, I want to tap Shewter today" and then go do it at his leisure, without any reason at all. Its not possible, legally, in the hyperbolic way you tried ot discuss it seriously.

Sneak and Peak requires a judge to sign off on it, and they do still have to alert you. The burden IS higher than simply needing to say "he works with terrorists" as well.

But thank you for showing my point. You talked in extreme hyperbole originally, yet presented yourself as serious. Then when called on it you've danced around, showing nothing that allows someone to listen in on you willy nilly "for no reason" and then continued with FURTHER hyperbole by saying they can just say "we have suspicion that he is a terrorist/is collaborating with terrorists." which is a gross under exaggeration of reality.

As someone pointed out, the government was NEVER meant to be completely unable to search, or sieze the information of, private citizens. They're not meant to do it when its in an unreasonable way. Now, you can argue the term of unreasonable all day long, but its a discussion that can not be had honestly if its litered with hyerbole and exaggeration.
 
But thank you for showing my point. You talked in extreme hyperbole originally, yet presented yourself as serious. Then when called on it you've danced around, showing nothing that allows someone to listen in on you willy nilly "for no reason" and then continued with FURTHER hyperbole by saying they can just say "we have suspicion that he is a terrorist/is collaborating with terrorists." which is a gross under exaggeration of reality.

As someone pointed out, the government was NEVER meant to be completely unable to search, or sieze the information of, private citizens. They're not meant to do it when its in an unreasonable way. Now, you can argue the term of unreasonable all day long, but its a discussion that can not be had honestly if its litered with hyerbole and exaggeration.

You have yet to provide proof that they are unable to invade your life on little more than a whim.

Untill then, I'll take your accusations of hyperbole and exaggeration as a lack of present information.
 
Ahh.

Sure thing then. May be a bit as I'll need to go find the links and the appropriate piece. Unfortunantly a number of the sources came from scholarly articles in respected political science and law journals that I unfortunantly no longer have access to since graduating. However in those cases I'll happily give you the information paraphased and give you the relevant information to find the source.

That said, should probably go in a different thread as this thread is meant to apparently be about the feds removing the rights of the states through constitutional amendments, and thus we've gone a bit off track.
 
Ahh.

Sure thing then. May be a bit as I'll need to go find the links and the appropriate piece. Unfortunantly a number of the sources came from scholarly articles in respected political science and law journals that I unfortunantly no longer have access to since graduating. However in those cases I'll happily give you the information paraphased and give you the relevant information to find the source.

That said, should probably go in a different thread as this thread is meant to apparently be about the feds removing the rights of the states through constitutional amendments, and thus we've gone a bit off track.

I can agree to that. I'll follow up with you wherever you post it.
 
Back
Top Bottom