[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We have these two bills of writ that specifically provide for due process. I am pretty sure there is no wording in the rest of the document that give the gov’t permission to spy. Why do you think the patriot act is costitutional? Please show in the constituion where it is provided – please also remember Amendment X.
And I am pretty sure the 4th Amendment protects against “unreasonable” searches and seizures - and the qualifier is not superfluous. National security - as a prerogative of the executive branch - gets a great deal of deference in the exercise of those constitutional powers. Warrantless searches can be “reasonable” if basic law enforcement probable-cause standards are impractical. National security certainly qualifies - in fact, there is no greater need for the exception than national security.
The “reasonableness” term means something - and it was no accident the Founding Fathers put it in in order to leave a class of actions available in times of national emergency. They were infinitely smarter than revisionist libertarians, and the phrasing is no mistake of history.
The Constitution was not written to be a suicide pact, where the provisions protecting liberty were to be used by enemies to destroy those very provisions.
And it is always worth quoting “government hegemonist” and “fascist”…er, wait, I mean libertarian patron-saint Thomas Jefferson to emphasize the point of the Constitution not being a suicide pact:
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 the 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 ends to the means.
“Necessity is the plea of slaves and tyrants alike.”–William Pitt, a british PM that the colonists loved. I would also shudder to consider TJ a pure libertarian. The whole crew of founders were a seriously mixed bag. In a letter to Abigail Adams Jefferson wrote that he would rather see half of the earth destroyed than to see the French Revolution fail. This was in response to him being initially informed about the streets running with blood from the Terror. More than anything, I would consider Jefferson, not a libertarian, but a democrat. Not in today’s sense, but essentially a majority rule guy. And at the time, the republican press, of which he was the leader of the party, had slammed him as president for overstepping his bounds and violating the Constitution in the wake of the Louisiana Purchase.
Your quote also has no value until it is placed in context. When did TJ say that? Understand that Jefferson was one of the strongest opponents of the Constitution initially until many years later when it became the accepted law of the land. Why then should I care what he has to say about the Constitution until about 1797-8?
Now as far as the quote itself standing on its own merits, I actually agree with it. Your and Mick’s attitude in this I find particularly sad, because I would bet you money that Orion and Lifticus are probably in agreement with it as well. The only serious disagreement we all have here is the severity of the Islamo-fascist threat and the impact of 9/11 itself. Now if only you guys can put your dicks back in your pants and put the tape measure away we can resume an interesting thread.
mike[/quote]
I agree with you in general but have a different opinion in one thing.
We do not disagree on the severity of the NY attacks but we disagree on how much a government should be trusted.
Since governments have killed, robbed and enslaved more people than any other kind of organisation in mankinds history I am very reluctant to grant governments any more powers.
What good does it do to prevent a 9-11 a year when 30 years later the same government will use the same authorities to kill millions?