28 replies to this topic

[jextract]

The concept is to defend the Bill of Rights.  They read them with a strange slant.

even worse, the selectively defend the bill of rights.

they are strangely silent on the amendment which gaurentees all the others

And when was the last time you heard of them bringing a suit to defend the Ninth or Tenth Amendments (in conjunction with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution)? They seem to treat the Bill of Rights like eating at a cafeteria: "I'll have some of this, a lot of that, and no thanks on anything else."

[jextract]

It's just more grist for the intelligence data base--gets put in--gets correlated with all the other information they are gathering--who knows if it ever comes out.

True. Big Brother at work. We need to defend against small and large infringements on our privacy by the government. There are times when law enforcement officials need such information to conduct investigations and/or locate suspects for arrest. In those situations, they should get the information. In other situations, they should not. Our system is set up for the courts to decide when law enforcement is entitled to gather that information. We should let the system work as intended. Release information when presented with a court order, don't when the court order is missing. Law enforcement officials are used to working within those constrains, they do it very well. It is not placing an undue burden on them to make them follow proper proceedure. I'll be happy to release information on any of my students or former students to the FBI when presented with a valid court order. If the court order is missing, no information will be released. My agency is following the same proceedure.

It is amazing to me that Homeland Security seems to need buckets of information on us, yet when congress passes an intelligence reform bill they can't even include reforms on illegal immigration, asylum, documentation (drivers' licenses) so that we know WHO is here in the first place. Let us not forget that 19 hijackers held over 60 drivers' licenses. Couple this with the bill that congress passed a few years ago (sponsored by Senator Barney Frank) that says that being a member of a terrorist organization is not sufficient to deny a visa. What kind of insanity is that?

[jextract]

Yes, propaganda is a wonderful thing.  Lincoln's list of abuses of human rights is one of the longest in history.  He was an evil dictator.  You don't win arguments by comparing civil rights abuses of today with those of a man who murdered over 600,000 people, tossed people in jail not only without trial, but without even charging them with crimes, fixed elections, destroyed newspapers and jailed newspaper owners/employees who dared to write against his policies and tossed out the Constitution because of a desire to introduce an unconstitutional economic policy. 

FDR was not much better!

The Bill of Rights isn't something to ignore when it doesn't suit your needs.  It's something to defend at all times from everyone and anyone who is trying to circumvent it.  Without the Bill of Rights in full force, there's nothing special about living in the USA.  Those ideals are worth defending with your last breath.  Different set of priorities and a different mindset don't change the Constitution.

People seem to forget that the Constitution is a contract by which we, the governed, give power to those we choose to govern. It is NOT the other way around. Via that contract, we have set very specific items which the federal government has responsibility for and nothing else (Principle of Enumerated and Delegated Powers). Everything else is to be left to us, either directly or through the states.

[Walter]

FDR was not much better!

FDR did some of the same things, but different methods. Doesn't make it better, just different. He didn't murder over 600,000 Americans. While he didn't arrest people and have them held without charges, he did something similar - he had them held as mental patients. He wasn't able to pull off abuses on the same scale as Lincoln.

[BradfordNC]

FDR did some of the same things, but different methods..... While he didn't arrest people and have them held without charges,

oh but he did. he had thousands of families rounded up, forced out of their homes, confiscated their property, and imprisoned them in internment camps, simply for being of asian heritage.

[BradfordNC]

Hmmm... if I get your drift, the one you think they should defend is the one that someone might use to silence my right to free speech. Just being playful, not serious. The only time I "bare" arms these days is when I'm getting a flu shot.

Dr. Bill

Dr.

I think they should defend them all.

what i said was the ACLU will raise hell for any perceived violation of the constitution, unless that violation has to do with the 2nd.

and that is the right that allows the citizen to protect the constitution.

like Jex said, that document is a contract between the people and the government. spelling out how the government will serve the people, not the other way around.

as any dictator will tell ya, in order to take away a people rights, you must first take away their ability to resist.

and yes, it is the one that could be used by some to silence your freedom of speech. but if the right is not protected, and is taken away, then you can be sure that your freedom of speech will be next, and it would be the government doing it, and you would be most deffinately powerless to stop them.

[Walter]

Excellent points, Brad.

[drdiver]

So what Lincoln did was wrong?!???

Maybe it'd be nice to have the darkies down on the old plantation. Make they Massa's a nice supper. And take care of them afterwards.

I'm disgusted. What he did was necessary. (and don't give me the old argument about
the civil war wasn't about freeing the slaves) No, it was about saving the union.

To uphold the Constitution he had to do what he did. And, yes, sometimes you have to violate rights to do what needs to be done. Because there IS a bigger picture.

This country wouldn't exist in its present form (with our liberties!) without Lincoln.
TELL ME YOUR ALTERNATIVE HISTORY. No, on second thought, I don't want to hear it. It's some puerile fantasy of the South freeing its slaves and we all live happily ever after.

I just can't believe the stupidity I"m hearing.

It's just extraordinary.

I"m going to bed and I'm not coming back to this forum.

[Walter]

Yes, what Lincoln did was wrong!

First, sucession is constitutional. Three states (Virginia, New York and Rhode Island) specifically retained the right to secede when they ratified the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, the document which created the United States is a document of sucession. If sucession is wrong, the US should not exist, it should still be part of the British Empire.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.  This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.  Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it.  Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.

.....Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.......

Second, Lincoln was a racist. Of course slavery was wrong. It was being eliminated all over the world during this time period. Over $6 billion was spent on the war. If the goal was to free the slaves, the amount the north spent on the war would have been better spent by buying all the slaves and freeing them. Yes, the north spent enough on the war to do just that and there would have been enough left over to give each 4o acres and a mule.

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races.  There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgement, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.  I have never said anything to the contrary.

Robert Matson was an Illinois farmer who brought slaves into Illinois from Kentucky to work on his farm. While in the free state of Illinois, his slaves were "stolen." I would argue they were free from the moment he brought them into Illinois. Lincoln represented Matson in an attempt to get the slaves returned to slavery. Fortunately the Illinois Supreme Court disagreed with Lincoln and ruled they were, in fact, free.

Third, he had no desire to free the slaves, in fact there was slavery in the US until after his death, he never lifted a finger to try to end slavery.

Save the union? The union was never in danger. The union would continue to exist had the illegal war never taken place. At no time did the Confederacy try to stop the United States from existing. The "save the union" argument is silly at best.

Lincoln's economic policy was based on government funding of internal improvements. These improvements were to be made in the industrial states and funded by higher tariffs collected primarily in the agricultural states. The states that would be paying for these projects decided they didn't want to do so. If they were allowed to peacefully leave (as noone at the time questioned as their right) Lincoln would not be able to fund his policies. Since he wanted to fund them, he murdered 620,000 people to keep the cash cow from leaving.

To uphold the Constitution he had to do what he did. And, yes, sometimes you have to violate rights to do what needs to be done. Because there IS a bigger picture.

It is impossible to uphold the Constitution by violating it. The Constitution is the bigger picture.

[jextract]

what i said was the ACLU will raise hell for any perceived violation of the constitution, unless that violation has to do with the 2nd.

I would respectfully disagree. The ACLU believes in two things: unfettered freedom of speech, and absolute freedom from religion. Period.

[jextract]

FDR was not much better!

FDR did some of the same things, but different methods. Doesn't make it better, just different. He didn't murder over 600,000 Americans. While he didn't arrest people and have them held without charges, he did something similar - he had them held as mental patients. He wasn't able to pull off abuses on the same scale as Lincoln.

FDR fundamentally changed the way the Constitution is interpreted, which one might argue has had as great an impact on more people. He was one of the successful pioneers of the concept of taking money from one group who won't vote for you to buy the votes of others who will.

[Walter]

Well, the interstate commerce clause is used to cover a whole bunch of areas that have nothing to do with interstate commerce. It's violating the Constitution while pretending to follow it. There are lots of areas like this. The federal government has its finger in lots of areas in which it is prohibited by the Constitution. FDR is one major reason for this. I have very little respect for him and do not consider him a good president, but Lincoln was one of the worst mass murderers in history. He's far below Stalin and Hitler in numbers of people murdered, he's about on a level with Columbus, they killed hundreds of thousands instead of millions. They were all evil.

[jextract]

I'm surprised you left off Mao and Pol Pot and North Korea's father/son team!

[Walter]

It wasn't intended to be a comprehensive list.