More Egregious Affront to the US Constituions

That mention was in one of the amendments-- the authorship of which probably well predates the commonness of abortion so I won't get stuck on that point.

 

Shall I post a picture?

 

I didn't say "existed," I said "commonness."

I just checked. The XIV Amendment was ratified in 1868-- long before Abortion on Demand.

 

The so-called "clumsiness" of my poll was intentional-- to show that the law can come and go. We have a "law" the many people are comfortable with that results in the death of a chld. We have another "law" that may or may not be being broken which is resulting in the invasion of privacy of a few people who may be terrorists... and this is what people here are in an uproar over...?

 

Boil it down: people here, at least, seem to have a greater problem with the privacy of a few "questionable" people being invaded than with innocent children being killed. To me that is bewildering...

 

<b>Sishir Chang

A few things:

1. As I said earlier there should be only one correct answer to your poll due to the way you word it. Your wording taken at face value is asking people to consider saying that a crime is more in tune with the Constitution than what isn't a crime. That people would read it the other way is a misunderstanding of the nature of the Constitution. Regarding wiretapping or abortion doesn't matter. What is illegal is an affront to the Constitution, what is legal isn't. It doesn't matter what the issue is.</b>

I guess I don't have a problem with seeing some crimes as greater (i.e. worse) than others. Also I think it important to address the irony of Abortion of Demand with the Constitution looming in the background. Can it not be said that a Right to Life is a Constitutional guarantee? Well, what about that?

The 14th Amendment was drawn to assure the place of ex-slaves in our country not to allow children to be snuffed in utero.

<b>2. This poll is an attempt to tie two issues together that aren't really related and from your response is really an attempt to discount and divert the seriousness of the wiretapping to another issue. Its essentially derailing the issue. It would be the same as if I posted a poll saying "What is more egregious? The illegal use of mar1juana or the legal exploitation of farmers in Guatemala.
I agree abortion is a serious issue. So is (as you seem to agree to) illegal wiretapping. That one might think one issue is more serious than the other doesn't lessen the other issue. They both should be considered.</b>

So explain the disparity of the poll results. Why didn't everyone vote BOTH? Most diminished the importance of Abortion as an affront to the Constitution.

<b>3. Do you understand the nature of why the violation of privacy of a few "questionable" people in this situation is serious? The Admin's argument goes further than just that they can surveil people without a warrant but that the Executive branch can do anything as long as they say its for fighting terrorism. The warrant issue is just a symptom of an abuse of power by the Executive because for one they didn't need to do it in the first place since there already is the FISA court and they can apply for retroactive warrants. There was no sound reason for even wiretapping other than that it was incovenient. The Admin. has pretty much admitted as much.
Ask yourself what is more important that the Admin. be inconvenienced or that the separations of power be respected?</b>

There is one sound reason for wiretapping without the warrants: the judicial decision may have been a bad one.

<b>4. Your earlier sarcastic posts regarding "Independents" on the board shows how little that current political views reflect what is the historical nature of the "Conservative" or 'Liberal" or the two parties. Frankly the arguments in support of the Admin put forward by self-declared conservatives I find to be an affront to the true principles underlying political Conservatism. To the point that Republicans are supporting a Republican President on this issue is also an affront to traditional ideas of the Republican party regarding limited and restrained government. What Republicans and so-called conservatives are supporting is nothing short of granting the President the ability to act completely unfettered and sell out the separation of powers that this country was founded upon.

To me that's not very Republican or Conservative.</b>

Sorry but I just don't buy into this thing about the Administration doing whatever it wants, whenever it want to anybody it wants to. I think these are trying times and some "unusual" concessions may be necessary.

Some say that that alone is a victory for the terrorists; I disagree. I say that all the complaining and paranoia about what in perspective is reasonable action to take is what hands victory to the terrorists.

If I have an illegal gun in my house and I hear a burglar downstairs am I going to:

1. Creep downstairs and blast away with my illegal weapon
2. Sneak out the back way and go get a gun permit and hope to be back by lunch
3. Wait in bed until he comes up and, perhaps, kills me with his own illegal gun

 

<b>andymoon

The Constitution specifically limits the rights it gives to people "born" in the United States. Since a fetus (it is a fetus, not a child) has not been born, it is not due Constitutional rights.</b>

Again, the 14th Amendment was drafted in the 19th Century specifically addressing the issues of newly freed slaves. Had the forefathers envisioned Abortion of Demand, I'm sure they would have addressed it in the Constitution.

<b>No, most rightly believe that a legal action is less of an affront to the Constitution than an illegal one. You are the one who worded the poll that way, if you don't like the results, start another poll.</b>

I got the results I expected. That's a different issue from liking them. What I wanted revealed has been revealed.

<b>It is not up to the President or his administration to make this determination. It is the charge of the administration to faithfully execute ALL the laws of the land, not just the ones that are convenient for his agenda.</b>

If you are responsible for the safety of the nation, I doubt you would let some judge somewhere put the nation at risk. I will say that this is a risk that President Bush is taking but I think he has just reason for doing so.


<b>"He who would give up liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither."</b>

Ah, were our greater risk still the musket! How romantic! My liberty is intact; how's yours?

<b>I say that if we have a President who feels he is above the law, the law doesn't apply to him, and that he can do what he wants in violation of laws that specifically lay out what he can do and all of this is in the name of fighting the WoT, then the terrorists have won.</b>

The greatest accomplishment would be to do whatever is necessary to fight this extraordinarily unusual enemy, defeat them, and return to American business as usual. I'm not buying into the paranoia that America will never be the same.

<b>Probably 1, but then you should be prepared to go to jail once the police learn about your illegal gun.</b>

Well ain't that a dumb outcome; I hope a jury would get hung or something.

Isn't my example somewhat analgous to what Bush is doing?

 

</b>

I agree but come to a different conclusion. To me it is the "bend but do not break" scenario. That young nation had no experience and no history; in the 21st century we have all that in bunches.

The weapon remark is about damage and danger not defeat.

 

<b>andymoon

Was there not abortion in the time of the forefathers?</b>

Probably very rare.

<b>And I very seriously doubt that they would have "addressed" abortion in the Constitution. They were more interested in putting together a workable framework that would stand the test of time than addressing specific issues.</b>

I doubt that too. All I'm saying is had they imagined the Abortion Industry as it exists today, they wouldn't have used the "born" language. Do you really think a young nation struggling to gain strength in numbers would have wanted to kill of the young?

<b>So you wanted to reveal that people view illegal actions as more of an affront to the Constitution than legal actions? What a no-brainer.</b>

No what I want to do is to point out that people view "terminal" actions as less of an affront to the Constitution than an invasion of privacy. What a shocker!

<b>Yeah, why should Bush let a little thing like a LAW THAT HE IS CHARGED WITH ENFORCING get in the way of what he wants done?</b>

Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

<b>This is not to mention that nobody has shown that getting warrants after the fact would somehow "put the nation at risk." It is truly sad that people like you are willing to allow Bush to break the law because YOU believe that "he has just reason for doing so." It is nice that you think so, but it doesn't change the fact that Bush is breaking laws that he, as President, is SWORN to enforce.</b>

Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

<b>Must be nice to in one breath claim that the founding fathers would outlaw abortion in the Constitution and then completely invalidate a documented statement made by one of them. How does that time machine/ESP device work?</b>

I never said they would have outlawed abortion. I'm just saying that the vagaries of the language which have been seized upon and taken advantage of would not be there for the taking.

Are you asserting that Abortion of Demand is the kind of thing the Founding Fathers or the 19th century legislators who wrote the 14th Amendment had in mind when they drew up the language?

<b>Even Bush says that the WoT cannot EVER be "won." You may be comfortable letting Bush do "whatever is necessary," but that kind of thinking by the populace is what allowed Hitler to do the heinous things that he did. I am NOT comparing Hitler and Bush, I am comparing the willingness of the populace to allow their leader too much latitude in doing "whatever it takes."</b>

I'm surprised it took you this long to get to a Hitler reference. Why not give a little more latitude if, as you say, we DON'T have a Hitler to deal with?

<b>Yes, it is analagous and just as you should go to jail for the illegal gun, Bush should be censured in some way for his illegal actions.</b>

Fine. Go for it.