Can the constitution of America be overlooked?

[grannywils]

A recent thought has come to me that has posed intresting questions. If there was a time of severe crisis and Nation threatening proportions, is it possible to overlook the Constitution of America to save hundreds of thousands if not millions of its people and there was no other solution to do so? (Please reframe from turning this into a religious and or a major political debate. Thank you.)

 

 

To be perfectly honest I do not even want to take part in this discussion. However, your question confuses me. Could you be more specific about these circumstances, this "severe crisis". Has this nation not faced several crises of varying degrees of severity, both internal and external in its relatively short history? I believe that since this Nation was founded based upon the Constitution, that there can be no reason for us to ignore it. Yet again I find myself agreeing with Vagrant0, particulary with respect to the "Patriot" Act. But I would take it even further. If this vaguely defined "we" were to determine that it had become necessary to "overlook the Constitution in order to save hundreds of thousands if not millions of its people", etc, etc., I personally do not believe that we would be this Nation any longer. Call it anarachy, call it dissolution of government, call it what you will. But the United State of America (We the People) would have ceased to exist, in my humble opinion.

[Aurielius]

There have been occasions when the Constitution has been violated but those times were not to our credit ie; the interment of the Nisei during the Second World War , but that was a shameful bit of xenophobia. The suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War would be another example, but being a strict Constitutionalist I am in favor of neither example. I prefer amendments not abandonment of the Constitution, nations and men are judged how well they stand fast to their ideals during times of extreme duress, as it should be.

[Retribution]

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.

Nothing negative stems from the Patriot Act, though.

[krimzin]

Lol Martial Law is scary. You know somebody royally screwed up when the government issues Martial Law. Basically temporary dictatorship. Brutal, but effective. Military overrules all authority.

 

Oh god no! That'll be pure anarchy, it'll be worse than the initial threat. (Unless nuclear warfare were to become involved.)

Not necessarily, it just locks a state down. They did it during the civil war. But with today's technology, both weaponry and communications, it would get ugly fast. People blow stories about police trying to keep the peace out of proportion now. They shoot a guy with a gun and the media change the story so much that it ends up, the guy was praying in his room and the police came in and shot him 42 times in the eye. If the military had to lock down a state, it would be chaos.

 

Off-Topic but interesting:

That cop story was true. My dad's friend is part of the SWAT team in cache valley Utah. There was this guy who had two mac-10's and raised them at the SWAT and they all simultaneously fired and shot him. They recognized the threat and acted dutifully, though they were all very emotionally shaken after the event. They had killed a man. So in comes the media, who royally f*** up the story, saying he was innocent and the police used a "mob mentality" in shooting him. I think I even heard of a dramatization with actors and the man's son was wearing white robes and praying in his room when they shot the father. All to make a story. The truth was a sufficient story IMO. /rant

[TheCalliton]

yes, but it shouldnt be

[DarkNinja13]

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.

 

Ah, the Patriot Act ....

I went to work at a call centre taking credit card applications after that one was laid on us. The whole thing was essintially spun to sound like it was designed to keep tabs on terrorists and money laundering activity to aid the US Justice Dept., but those of us who read closer, know better.

 

The thing is, our own government used the tragedy of 9/11 to do the one thing they have always wanted to do, but couldn't because of our "right to privacy" standing inthe way; and that was look into the banks and see who has the money, where it is, and what they are doing with it. Now for most of us, what they'd find would be pretty boring (they'd see I bought a cheeseburger from Burger King on the way home today, paid a phone bill, got petrol, etc- la dee freaking dah!). The rich folk are going to be who they look at since they have all the money (and it's more fun to watch someone buy electronic equipment, sports cars, and short-stops, than it is to watch someone buy a cheeseburger).

 

The biggest reason that the patriot act fails on this point, in my opinion, is simple:

How many criminals do you suppose are going to buy a crate of illegal weapons and pay for them with a check? :wacko:

I'm thinking NONE.

 

So it's just a big government ploy to be nosy and not have to hear us gripe about them violating our privacy - we're fighting terrorists and criminals (supposedly).

[Keanumoreira]

A recent thought has come to me that has posed intresting questions. If there was a time of severe crisis and Nation threatening proportions, is it possible to overlook the Constitution of America to save hundreds of thousands if not millions of its people and there was no other solution to do so? (Please reframe from turning this into a religious and or a major political debate. Thank you.)

 

 

To be perfectly honest I do not even want to take part in this discussion. However, your question confuses me. Could you be more specific about these circumstances, this "severe crisis". Has this nation not faced several crises of varying degrees of severity, both internal and external in its relatively short history? I believe that since this Nation was founded based upon the Constitution, that there can be no reason for us to ignore it. Yet again I find myself agreeing with Vagrant0, particulary with respect to the "Patriot" Act. But I would take it even further. If this vaguely defined "we" were to determine that it had become necessary to "overlook the Constitution in order to save hundreds of thousands if not millions of its people", etc, etc., I personally do not believe that we would be this Nation any longer. Call it anarachy, call it dissolution of government, call it what you will. But the United State of America (We the People) would have ceased to exist, in my humble opinion.

 

Well it would obviously have to be bioterrorism or a nuke to go off in a city for this kind of situation to occur. It may not sound extreme if it takes place in a single area, but an attack like this would cause Nation panic, and to protect ourselves from total destruction, we have to take precautionaries and might even have to violate the constitution. But like I said, the chances of this happening are slim so we are just debating if they would violate it which most likely they would.

[SpellAndShield]

There have been occasions when the Constitution has been violated but those times were not to our credit ie; the interment of the Nisei during the Second World War , but that was a shameful bit of xenophobia. The suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War would be another example, but being a strict Constitutionalist I am in favor of neither example. I prefer amendments not abandonment of the Constitution, nations and men are judged how well they stand fast to their ideals during times of extreme duress, as it should be.

 

How is this compatible with your world view regarding our foreign policy? You confuse me Aurielius.

[Sinophile]

Whenever the liberties of a Nation are stripped, it is because the people themselves beg for them to be stripped away; There are many examples of this happening throughout history, most notably with Julius Caesar and Napoleon. Obama wants to pass an act regulating the internet, and to extend the Patriot Act, Although to his credit, he shut down Gitmo.

As for freedom of speech, the internet is really the last frontier of freedom. Older forms of media, such as radio, television, and even print are not only heavily regulated, but dominated by an Oligarchy. For example, There are only 4 different Broadcasting companies: ABC, CBS, FOX, and MSNBC.

[Aurielius]

There have been occasions when the Constitution has been violated but those times were not to our credit ie; the interment of the Nisei during the Second World War , but that was a shameful bit of xenophobia. The suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War would be another example, but being a strict Constitutionalist I am in favor of neither example. I prefer amendments not abandonment of the Constitution, nations and men are judged how well they stand fast to their ideals during times of extreme duress, as it should be.

 

How is this compatible with your world view regarding our foreign policy? You confuse me Aurielius.

 

This is internal structural issue but I am not aware that being against forced internment of the Nisei or the suspension of Habeas Corpus is at odds with my well known hawkish foreign policy viewpoint. The nisei were citizens not proven terrorists, so how I relate to Gitmo is unaffected. If you can find a post where I am in favor of the suspension of Habeas Corpus I would be amused. I do not believe that you will find any post in favor of anything but defending the constitution.

Now, do you mean; how can idealism set well with my natural cynicism that's another matter. Idealism sets a high standard to live up to, cynicism is amused when you don't manage it.

Less confused?