1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

  2. Live Rockets Discussion
    Jalen Green looks like a legit star, Amen Thompson is shining and the Rockets have found something without Alperen Sengun. Clutch is talking about the 10-game winning streak at 11:00am as we talk Rockets live!

    Talking Rockets - LIVE!

Mayor Bloomberg: Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Rocket River, Apr 23, 2013.

  1. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    61,246
    Likes Received:
    28,751
    http://politicker.com/2013/04/bloom...tion-of-the-constitution-will-have-to-change/

    Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing


    [/quote]
    Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing


    In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.

    “The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

    Mr. Bloomberg, who has come under fire for the N.Y.P.D.’s monitoring of Muslim communities and other aggressive tactics, said the rest of the country needs to learn from the attacks.

    “Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.

    “We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to,” he said.

    The mayor pointed to the gun debate and noted the courts have allowed for increasingly stringent regulations in response to ever-more powerful weapons.

    “Clearly the Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws … Here we’re going to to have to live with reasonable levels of security,” he said, pointing to the use of magnetometers to catch weapons in city schools.

    “It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks,” he said. “We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can’t do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection.”

    Still, Mr. Bloomberg argued the attacks shouldn’t be used as an excuse to persecute certain religions or groups.

    “What we cant do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms,” he said. “You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is. And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That’s not true … That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do.”

    [/quote]


    Hmmmm . . . I cannot say I agree

    Rocket River
     
  2. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,046
    Definitely don't agree.
     
  3. larsv8

    larsv8 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    21,663
    Likes Received:
    13,913
    Can you imagine if Obama said that about gun violence?
     
  4. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,732
    Likes Received:
    36,182
    Uh, it changed 3 years ago reversing two centuries of interpretation on the strenght of a change in policy by the Bush administration, and a 5-4 vote.

    Why can't you agree? I mean aside from the fact that you don't know waht you are talking about.
     
  5. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,059
    Likes Received:
    13,408
    Is this 1984? There are people who want to take away our freedoms, so we have to take them away first so they don't get to?

    Changing our interpretation of the Constitution is double-plus good.
     
  6. ILoveTheRockets

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,047
    Likes Received:
    62
    Americans response to Mayor Bloomberg...

    [​IMG][/Spoiler
     
  7. ILoveTheRockets

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,047
    Likes Received:
    62
    Spoiler has failed me!
     
  8. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    61,246
    Likes Received:
    28,751
    What the ____ are *YOU* talking about? :confused:
    So you now agree with more monitoring and invasion of privacy. Interesting.


    Privacy *is* a freedom for me . . .. giving it up one freedom to protect other freedoms is crazy.


    Rocket River
    If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
     
  9. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    61,246
    Likes Received:
    28,751
    Sam Fisher thinks so . . evidently

    Rocket River
     
  10. Mr. Clutch

    Mr. Clutch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    46,550
    Likes Received:
    6,131
    Take away our freedoms so we can enjoy our freedoms.
     
  11. Dairy Ashford

    Dairy Ashford Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    1,831
    Too bad, after Obama that would have been a nice one to check off the list. Geez, the one of out a hundred that didn't go to law school.
     
  12. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,732
    Likes Received:
    36,182
    Here is a news bulletin for you and juanvaldez. There are millions of judicial, enforcement and administrative and regulatory personnel rearranging and interpreting and applying your constitutional rights every single day, because contrary to popular belief the constitution while written on magic golden plates,does not elucidate an easily discernible answer to all possible scenarios unto infinity and the multi verse.

    Most prominently among these is the occasionally laughable divination of THE NINE but it happens every day in many less visible contexts. So your histrionics are ill taken.
     
  13. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    53,785
    Likes Received:
    111,485
    Contrary to what Nino and Uncle Bens would like you to believe, the concept of what the Constitution means and the protections it affords changes constantly. The real issue is whether you support the type of change Bloomberg and others are advocating. I personally do not, and have not for the past dozen years.
     
  14. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    53,785
    Likes Received:
    111,485
    Bloomberg knows what is better for you as an individual than you do.
     
  15. Mr. Clutch

    Mr. Clutch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    46,550
    Likes Received:
    6,131
    It was much cooler when FDR or W said it.
     
  16. Mathloom

    Mathloom Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    18,151
    Likes Received:
    17,955
    The real question is, why change the interpretation instead of actually changing it?

    All the lawyers in here can explain that one to you.
     
  17. peleincubus

    peleincubus Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    13,160
    One day something will that will be much worse then 9/11 and what happens then? I'm not saying its an easy solution but unfortunately I feel its inevitable.
     
  18. Mathloom

    Mathloom Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    18,151
    Likes Received:
    17,955
    Yes of course nothing is going to stop those foreigners from trying to attack America, nothing at all. It's not like there was a time when no one engaged in these attacks on America, security was better and freedoms plentiful. That's a pipe dream.
     
  19. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,147
    Likes Received:
    25,187
    we bomb the **** out of iran while doing a half assed job occupying nuclear pakistan for a decade

    That'll make us safe again, or at least the laws striking civil liberies that doesn't sunset will.
     
  20. dmc89

    dmc89 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    255
    I agree. Increasing surveillance and data collection on individual behaviour is inevitable. Corporations and states in the Internet Age have seen how valuable this data can be.

    Privacy has always been a temporary, illusory belief. On a planet like ours with ever increasing population and dwindling resources, mainstream American views on privacy will be overshadowed by the needs for security and stability. People like to believe they can live in a vacuum. But, there will always be some entity that seeks to have influence over them. There is no more 'wild', uncharted land left. I think the ideas of John Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau have really manifested themselves easily in today's world.

    A police state doesn't necessarily have to be Orwellian/Big Brother. Future terror attacks will be prevented more easily. A positive feedback cycle will continue where people trade away some rights in exchange for safety. Unless someone who specifically opposes them comes into power, the Bill of Rights will remain intact with the exception of the 2nd amendment. For example, when there are no police cars around, people can speed as fast as they want to on the freeways regardless of the danger imposed on motorists. Traffic cameras can easily regulate this behaviour. Or if there's a carjacking after a terrorist attempt, cameras can easily scan license plates to find the car faster. Infrared cameras can scan inside cars to see if there's someone hiding in the event of kidnapping. The possibilities go on.

    The libertarians on this board will be amazed (disappointed?) at how easily most Americans will relinquish some rights if another major attack happens. I saw how apathetic most people were after 2001 with the Patriot Act, DHS, etc. I've seen how people in China, Singapore, and the UK live. No one really cares about civil liberties and surveillance as much as economic conditions and quality of life. However, I realize there are minorities in all these places who argue otherwise.

    TL;DR An American police state is not necessarily 1984. If another major attack happens, people will want more security and less privacy. Foreign countries with heavy surveillance show people will accept their conditions if their standard of living seems decent.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now