Can the constitution of America be overlooked?

[ginnyfizz]

And before someone starts going off about Obama and the first amendment, I would remind you that the Patriot Act (under Bush) single-handedly did more to restrict the freedom of speech than anything passed through congress in the last 2 years.

 

Oh, so it is legitimate to criticize Bush on the Patriot Act, but not to criticize Obama for his repeated assaults on the First Amendment? But then no-one has ever claimed Bush was some sort of Messiah. No-one excuses what Bush did, but everyone is so blinded by this Obama worship that he gets away with it. We in Britain had a similar experience with Mr B liar (mis-spelling intentional.)

[RedVexHK]

Under the American War Measures Act portions of the constitution can and have been overlooked...Guantanamo Bay in recent times... equally depending on how severe the situation... sweeping changes can be made law in short order... an extremely rare situation.... technically only twice in American history has this happened... the first when the Constitution was first MADE law. Second.. When Civil war was declared. In Modern History only minor but nonetheless draconian changes were passed into law by force as part of the Homeland Security Act.fortunately I doubt and pray nothing dire enough to cause sweeping changes will ever occur in my lifetime. Any changes or acts of Congress... or what powers involved may be... in the forseeable future will not overlook such inalienable rights as the Constitution laid writ.

 

However... as an aside...a once democratic Germany in only a few short years fell to a complete overthrow of everything good and noble the very house of Parliment the Reich Chancellery was dissolved and a new regime was installed... we all know where THAT led... so to say nay... well... it's unlikely.... but if it happened before... it can happen again... even to a great country like America.so I will say yes...... and hope to god I never live to see such a thing happen.

Hopefully none of us ever see it happen.

[evilneko]

 

Nothing negative stems from the Patriot Act, though.

You eh, seem to be missing your sarcasm tags.

[Retribution]

 

Nothing negative stems from the Patriot Act, though.

You eh, seem to be missing your sarcasm tags.

No sarcasm was intended.

[grannywils]

Under the American War Measures Act portions of the constitution can and have been overlooked...Guantanamo Bay in recent times... equally depending on how severe the situation... sweeping changes can be made law in short order... an extremely rare situation.... technically only twice in American history has this happened... the first when the Constitution was first MADE law. Second.. When Civil war was declared. In Modern History only minor but nonetheless draconian changes were passed into law by force as part of the Homeland Security Act.fortunately I doubt and pray nothing dire enough to cause sweeping changes will ever occur in my lifetime. Any changes or acts of Congress... or what powers involved may be... in the forseeable future will not overlook such inalienable rights as the Constitution laid writ.

 

However... as an aside...a once democratic Germany in only a few short years fell to a complete overthrow of everything good and noble the very house of Parliment the Reich Chancellery was dissolved and a new regime was installed... we all know where THAT led... so to say nay... well... it's unlikely.... but if it happened before... it can happen again... even to a great country like America.so I will say yes...... and hope to god I never live to see such a thing happen.

Hopefully none of us ever see it happen.

 

Very interesting and well thought out. And of course you are right in pointing out just how quickly things can go completely out of control (as they did in Germany), once you start loosening up on your basic underlying bulwark. Thanks for this post.

[Kendo 2]

In Modern History only minor but nonetheless draconian changes were passed into law by force as part of the Homeland Security Act.

 

And don't forget about FDR. He regulated radio broadcasts before WW2 and really stomped on people's rights during the war.

[Maxwell the Fool]

Legally? No. But there is a long history of presidents who do just that (some not even in a time of crisis). Two of the biggest names that pop up are TR and FDR. One of TR's favorite phrases (according to my current History Professor, who's written several books on TR), was, "What's the Constitution between friends?" FDR did many things to mess up the checks and balances, such as the alteration of Executive Orders. Basically, there is no longer any accountability for them.

 

And you're probably gonna get a fairly intense political debate, because the Constitution is the source of ALL politics in this country. Also the source of all law. Not a coincidence.

[Vindekarr]

I think every so often we should have a look at the constitutions of all countries. It really truly amazes me that the constitution of america still works today, but even contemporary as it is, it needs a few modernisations that I wont bother mentiong here so as not to embolden/enrage zealots.

 

As for the original question, it really depends on who is in charge. I really like to think that a government would act in an emergancy, rather than letting their nation die to hold to an ideal-no matter how noble that ideal is. But it really depends on who is in power, An older, more traditionalist leader may refuse to go against the constitution, whereas a younger leader may simply react and worry about the constitution afterwoulds.

[Maxwell the Fool]

Why are people that oppose your opinion "zealots"?

[ginnyfizz]

I know, that question rather bothers me too, Maxwell. What really scares me is this part of Vindekarr's post;-

 

"I really like to think that a government would act in an emergancy, rather than letting their nation die to hold to an ideal-no matter how noble that ideal is. But it really depends on who is in power, An older, more traditionalist leader may refuse to go against the constitution, whereas a younger leader may simply react and worry about the constitution afterwoulds."

 

In the USA there is a written constitution which makes this more difficult. In Britain we don't, and my God those younger leaders such as BLiar and gormless Gordon Brown exploited it. Using the so called War on Terror as an excuse, they have driven a coach and horses through a thousand years of the rule of law and virtually abolished Habeas Corpus, creating a police state and one that is surveillance saturated. Anti terrorist laws are now being used by local councils to snoop on people. For example, one council in Dorset, England, using an anti terrorist law, followed a married couple and their small children everywhere in a bid to find out if the parents were lying to obtain residency qualification to get the kids into a particular school. The kids were terrified. If I'd been the parents I'd have reported the council reps who were tailing the kids, when they were alone, as suspected paedophiles.

 

When can there ever be an excuse for shooting first and asking questions later? When you are actually in a full blown field of conflict maybe. But circumventing the constitution as a knee jerk response to acts of terrorism, for example, has never worked. Just look at how internment without trial boomeranged on the British in Northern Ireland.