|
Completly, the ends justify the means, If a police officer grabs your bag and searchs it, finding
drugs, your right to privacy is null and void. Our legal system should be a police state, then we
can stop handcuffing the police and let them do their job, namely, getting the crime and those who
break the laws of our streets, at any means necessary. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It can elapse the trust in someone innocent. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes. The USA would be a much safer place to live if the right to bear arms was withdrawn. You can't
cling onto a right granted hundreds of years ago as a historical imperative. Few people need to kill
bears, native Americans, fight the Brits etc. On any kind of routine basis these days. The Wild West
has gone for good.
Indeed, the world would be a safer place if the USA hadn’t been so lax in the first place by
treating airports like bus stations. If there had been some semblance of security in place
originally there would be no need now for the knee jerk reaction and over-compensation we are seeing
now.. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
The Constitution is the foundation of our country. If the rights of the Constitution were
sacrificed, then all hell would break lose. We the people are the controllers of this country, and
if our rights were taken away then the government could gain too much power, and the infrastructure
of our democracy would weaken, and it could allow holes for a dictator to take control of the
country. Think about it, if the higher government could just do what they want, then the power would
corrupt them, as it already does, but even more so and then they could possibly try taking over the
country. I agree with this statement 0%, and feels that it shows you ignorance in what the
Constitution is, the foundation of this country. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I highly agree with the response by Dhaopac...
"An unjust law is no law at all," for we should follow a just law like the United State Constitution
fully. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No, the constitutional rights, especially the right to free speech, should not be violated for the
temporary safety.
Two nice quotes for the ones who are for:
"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -
Benjamin Franclin
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be
because we destroyed ourselves." - Abraham Lincoln
I hope you will at least think about it. Thank you. :)
I think that the patriot act is one of the steps which can make a free country become a
dictatorship.
We shall learn from our mistakes and not make it next time imo. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Those for it. Will you accept a chip implanted in your body and a brand on your forehead, the only
way you'll receive food and water. If so go ahead and surrender all of your rights. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The constitutional rights were put there to protect the people. You can't protect people by making
the people afraid to stand up for their beliefs, that brings total control of the people and takes
away all freedom. The "Patriot" Act is just a way to control people and turn the country that
fought a war for freedom and spends so much money to supposedly defend that freedom into a monarchy. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither
Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin This explains it all. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm against it and there has already been said everything that needs to be said. We seem to forget
that if we follow the Constitution, we will be the most safe we could be. It is because we deter
from the Constitution that we are worried about our safety so much. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The short answer is "NO". Firearms are machines that don't make decisions. People make decisions.
Anything that is used for a purpose not intended can become a "Weapon." Sporting firearms are
intended for sporting use. Military firearms are intended for something quite different. A knife, a
fork, a baseball bat, a rock can all become weapons if used for an unintended purpose. Our
constitution has been assaulted over the past eight years. The presidency doe not have authority to
declare "War' only the Congress. Granted, the Congress has not stepped up their responsibility, but
the law remains. As to the question about should our Constitutional rights be sacrificed; Who will
make that decision and who makes the sacrifice? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
We all have the rights to bear arms, the problem is were common sense and laws differ. I have a few
firearms and i sure would not give them up freely. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No. Replacing right with supposed protection as such as the "Patriot act" are exactly what Hitler
used to destroy the German constitution. It is unbelievably similar the Enabling act of the Nazi
government. If it is between having protection or having freedom, then I think that I would rather
take my chances in the fastline of life with my right . |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I suggest you take a break and read a book. Perhaps Naomi Wolf's "The End of America." Maybe that
will change your mind. In her book, she lists the ten steps that every dictator has used to close an
open society and demonstrates how each is in action today in the United States. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No, not that it matters. It's all corrupt. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No. Constitutional rights should never be sacrificed under any circumstances. Even if it means that
the general public will not be safe, I do not believe that constitutional right should ever be
sacrificed. No one has the right to search and seize anyone without proper consent and reason. The
main purpose of constitutional rights is to keep the public safe, so if the public safety is in
danger, then something needs to be created or decided on that will allow pubic safety to be returned
to normal.
I do agree with Best4Write. Bush as already violated this issue in many ways. How many times has he
sacrificed someone's constitutional rights over his decisions and laws? I can't wait until Bush is
out of office. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Recent years have seen a retreat of civil liberties across the world, often by stealth, as
governments have geared up for the War on Terror. I find it very disturbing. The fact is that there
are many dark suspicions surrounding the official narrative of September 11th and the whole
phantasmal threat of Al Qaeda and the bogeyman "Islamofascism".
We in the UK have faced real terrorists before, terrorists who almost killed a British Prime
Minister. Yet we didn't feel the need to abandon our civil liberties. But, now, ancient rights, in
place since the Magna Carta, have been tossed overboard in response to this, in my view, largely
imaginary threat. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ABSOLUTELY NOT. THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, THANKS TO "GOD BUSH' WHO THINKS HE IS ABOVE EVERY LAW
AND THE CONSTITUTION.
We the voters of America must be wise enough to elect leaders at every level and for every office
who will uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No elected person has the right to take
away the few rights that we still have.
"God Bush" has declared above his signature on every signed law that it does not apply to him. THAT
IS TREASON. HE BELONGS IN PRISON FOR DOING SO. HAD ANY DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT DONE THAT, HE/SHE
WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED AND SENT TO PRESIDENT---ESPECIALLY IF THE NAME WAS CLINTON.
GOD ALMIGHTY BY ANY NAME, PLEASE PROTECT THIS GREAT COUNTRY AND EVERY PERSON THAT OUR FREEDOMS
INCREASE RATHER THAN DECREASE. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Section 412 of the USA PATRIOT Act is in violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 14th
Amendments. Not only does it bypass Habeas Corpus, wherein you have to bring forth evidence to
charge someone with an offense, but it allows for indefinite incarceration, search and seizure
without a warrant, wiretapping, and closed-court trials more like military tribunals closed to the
public.
While I agree that public safety is important and that I have nothing to hide, a democratic
government shouldn't be allowed to take such dictatorial standpoints to take control. Apart from an
invasion of privacy, it undermines a set authority (such as the open court system), risks innocence
by bypassing Habeas Corpus, and allows for a secrecy (indefinite incarceration without bail) which
might negatively impact an innocent man's life that no "government of the people" would stand
for.
"An unjust law is no law at all." |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
21 Jan 2008 08:22
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
