Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Warnings

Assault on freedom a bipartisan affair

June 18, 2013

Various of the nation’s founders, including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, have been credited with warnings to the effect that those willing to sacrifice their liberty in exchange for......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(25)

manydemocrats

Jun-18-13 8:39 AM

Gridiron you spoke my thoughts exactly. Heavens forbid if a Republican agrees with a Democrat. First of all, the nation's founders like Franklin and Jefferson didn't have I-PHONES. This is just another creation of warped and distorted Right Wing attempts to bring down the now soaring Obama Administration. Our liberty has not been jeprodized in any manner by this collection of phone call records. This investigative data was collected by the Bush administration as well, but you may note that this article makes NO MENTION OF THAT FACT!!!

9 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-18-13 9:01 AM

What's truly sad is the majority of the partisan hacks defending Obama raked Bush over the coals for less intrusive actions. They were against the Patriot Act before they supported. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Suttle

Jun-18-13 9:09 AM

How is it that a law that takes away the very liberties that our country was founded on is call..."the Patriot Act?" That is an oxymoron if I ever heard of one.

11 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-18-13 9:25 AM

I agree Suttle. So why do you on the left now support it given you opposed it when Bush introduced it?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BakerKat

Jun-18-13 10:11 AM

Haven't you heard the old saying, give them an inch and they'll take a mile? Bush took the inch - Obama owns the mile.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RANDOM21

Jun-18-13 12:14 PM

If Al Gore hadn't invented the internet then none of this would have been possible. Curses, Al Gore.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WhatsNext

Jun-18-13 8:56 PM

Speaking of oxymorons, "Sen. Dianne Feinstein" & "Intelligence" as in "Senate Intelligence Committee". Those two definitely do NOT go together.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Guy007

Jun-18-13 9:01 PM

FBI director,J. Edgar Hoover kept track of Americans activities for 50 plus years without compromising our civil liberties. With the recent culture of world terrorism,monitoring the activity of designated American citizens take priority over the civil liberties protection argument.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-18-13 9:30 PM

"...monitoring the activity of designated American citizens take priority over the civil liberties protection argument."

That argument was made in 1920's Russia and 1930's Germany but it doesn't jive with the Constitution of the United States of America.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Guy007

Jun-18-13 9:49 PM

Strict constructionalism(constitutionalism) is not healthy in an age of terrorism. Loose constructionalism(constitutionalism) is unfortunately the most appropriate in this age of instability.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Guy007

Jun-18-13 9:51 PM

Correction: constructionism

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-18-13 11:19 PM

BS

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Guy007

Jun-19-13 12:57 AM

It is not BS. Obviously you are sadly an illiterate of history,thus making your intellectually deficient comments reprehensible. Strict constructionism(advocated by Thomas Jefferson and states righters) of the constitution is widely accepted among the powers that be and the bulk of the populace during peacetime. However, loose constructionism(advocated by Alexander Hamilton and Federalists) of the constitution is widely used by the powers that be in times of perceived turmoil and instability threatening our government. Hence,during peacetime we accept states rights form of governmental control,while accepting a larger and more responsible federal government in times of instability,

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-19-13 8:45 AM

No, I am a student of history which is why your comments are BS. History has proven that when governments start taking rights from citizens, they are not inherently safer. The 4th Amendment does not lose its meaning simply because someone is fighting a slogan and any who believe it does is trying to advance an agenda that does not jive with the Constitution.

In testimony by proven liar James Clapper, Senator Lindsey Graham stated “"I'm a Verizon customer. I could care less if they're looking at my phone records. ... If you're not getting a call from a terrorist organization, you got nothing to worry about."

I much prefer the 4th Amendment that forces the burden of proof where it belongs, with the Government. That’s the principle the United States of America was founded on and one I STILL believe in today. Anything else is BS.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Guy007

Jun-19-13 1:26 PM

Chief Justice John Marshall,in his classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland,established the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article I,section8,clause 18 of the Constitution, which is an enlargement ,not a constriction of the powers expressly granted to Congress, which enables lawmakers to select any means reasonably adapted to effectuate those powers. This includes conspiring to injure a citizen in the free exercise of enjoyment of any right of privilege secured in the laws of the United States.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-19-13 2:08 PM

Sorry Guy but you're wrong. The Necessary and Proper Clause, even using the more liberal version favored by Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall does not authorize Congress to deny specifically states Constitutional Rights. That's so far out that you can't even call it a stretch, you have to refer to it for what it is, pure and utter BS. Nice try though.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-19-13 2:14 PM

"We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional."

Those are Chief Justice Marshall's words in his opinion regarding McCullough v Maryland. Note the phrase “which are not prohibited” and then compare that to the text of the 4th Amendment.

As I said, nice try Guy.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Guy007

Jun-19-13 4:32 PM

This is the retired P.H.D. of history refuting the actual BS of the aspiring STUDENT of history!!! The student really needs to apprentice himself/herself to an authority of history!!!

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrSmith

Jun-19-13 4:38 PM

Clapper is a liar, plain and simple. Same with Obama. How these two guys can look into the camera and lie about what the NSA can/does capture just reminds me that we are coming closer to living in the old Soviet Union every day.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-19-13 5:59 PM

If you're a PhD then I wonder, who's selling degrees? I hope you didn't pay too much because the student just proved you a fool.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Guy007

Jun-19-13 7:30 PM

My PHD was earned in 1969 at Georgetown. You certainly did not prove me wrong!! Again,let me reiterate:" Become an apprentice to an historian,to understand what was,what is,and what will be", as the late constitutional historian R G Gilkey once postulated.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-19-13 7:40 PM

I'm afraid sir that I have proven you wrong, using the words from Justice Marshall in doing so.according to the 4th Amendment, illegal search and seizures are expressly forbidden. According to Chief Justice Marshall, that voids any implied power under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Game, Set, Match.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-19-13 9:16 PM

"Become an apprentice to an historian,to understand what was,what is,and what will be", as the late constitutional historian R G Gilkey once postulated."

I'm sorry sir, but when I searched for R G Gilkey Constitutional Historian and nothing comes up.

Are you sure you have a PhD?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Guy007

Jun-19-13 10:58 PM

royal c gilkey

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-20-13 2:50 AM

I found 1 paper from William and Mary discussing the separation of church and state. From some of the points Mr. Royal made in that paper, I would have difficulty believing he would support your anecdotal argument you've put forth on this thread.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 25 comments
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web