Have We Given Up Essential Liberty For Temporary Safety? Yes or No?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

As noted, this violates every fundamental tenet of our Constitutional Republic. The measure is unlikely to become law, fortunately, but is indicative of the fear and ignorance of a significant number of Americans who would support such a proposal.

 

[imbalance]

For the past approximately 100 years, however, the leftists among us have forgotten or never learned to appreciate that original concept. And they have inch by inch, law by law, regulation by regulation, and court decision after court decision been stripping away our ability to govern ourselves and replacing those freedoms with authoritarian government.

Incorrect again, as usual.

In fact, liberals have worked tirelessly during that period to realize the original intent of the Framers, to limit government and enhance personal liberty:

By ending segregation: Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

By ending discrimination: Hernandez v. Texas (1954)

By ending the tyranny of ‘states rights’: Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

By ensuring the right to due process: Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

By ensuring the right to privacy - Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

By ensuring the right to equal protection under the law: Loving v. Virginia (1967)

In these and scores of other cases, it was conservatives who worked against individual liberty and to enhance the power of government.

...

What's So Wrong With Ron Paul?

*It is impossible to determine the ‘original intent’ of the Framers, anyone who claims such knowledge is a fool or a liar. The Framers were many men with many opinions that changed over the course of time, to state there was a single, particular ‘original intent’ is ignorant idiocy.

 

[imbalance]

So which one is it; fool or liar? My guess would be liar.

 

[Dot Com]

The T-Party goes on & on about liberty but...

 

[eots]

exactly what liberty are you now missing that you had before?

I hear this statement all the time but i see no difference in my freedoms.

maybe you dont notice a difference because you never exercised your freedom much..maybe you are ok with being molested and children being molested to get on a plane a train a bus a sporting event..or maybe you are a boiled frog

 

[BOBO]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is ALWAYS a REMNANT that have the courage to stand for what is essential.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I, personally have not been spied upon without a warrant by federal agents (that I know of).

That you know of.

Exactly. That one can not even be sure is a loss of personal freedom.

That this is even subject of debate among Americans is telling and sad.

For the past approximately 100 years, however, the leftists among us have forgotten or never learned to appreciate that original concept. And they have inch by inch, law by law, regulation by regulation, and court decision after court decision been stripping away our ability to govern ourselves and replacing those freedoms with authoritarian government.

Incorrect again, as usual.

In fact, liberals have worked tirelessly during that period to realize the original intent of the Framers, to limit government and enhance personal liberty:

By ending segregation: Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

By ending discrimination: Hernandez v. Texas (1954)

By ending the tyranny of ‘states rights’: Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

By ensuring the right to due process: Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

By ensuring the right to privacy - Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

By ensuring the right to equal protection under the law: Loving v. Virginia (1967)

In these and scores of other cases, it was conservatives who worked against individual liberty and to enhance the power of government.

What is the difference between leftists and liberals?

 

[Dragon]

What is the difference between leftists and liberals?

Two answers come to mind.

1) "Leftists" is a more inclusive term, encompassing illiberal socialists (such as Marxist-Leninists) as well as liberals.

2) In the thinking of right-wing nitwits, there is no difference, as to their minds, all liberals are Communists.

 

[theunbubba]

It was given away a piece at a time over the last 150 years. Ever since the 16th and 17th amendments were passed. We have to repeal those.

 

[Dragon]

It was given away a piece at a time over the last 150 years. Ever since the 16th and 17th amendments were passed. We have to repeal those.

I understand your reasoning w/r/t the income tax (although I disagree with it). But how is direct election of Senators a sacrifice of liberty?

For that matter, how is either one a sacrifice of liberty for the sake of security?

 

[theunbubba]

It was given away a piece at a time over the last 150 years. Ever since the 16th and 17th amendments were passed. We have to repeal those.

I understand your reasoning w/r/t the income tax (although I disagree with it). But how is direct election of Senators a sacrifice of liberty?

For that matter, how is either one a sacrifice of liberty for the sake of security?

It certainly was the beginning of the sacrifice of liberty when the Federal government got the right to know what amount of money I make. That was the beginning of state control of our lives. If they know what you have, they can control what you get.

The end of states rights in the federal government gave foreign governments more control over our government through embasies than our own state governments have. This was when we started down the road to internationalism. The states were given the selection of Senators as states as a check on federal power. The people already had direct election of Representatives as their own check on State government and spending by the federal government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is the difference between leftists and liberals?

Two answers come to mind.

1) "Leftists" is a more inclusive term, encompassing illiberal socialists (such as Marxist-Leninists) as well as liberals.

2) In the thinking of right-wing nitwits, there is no difference, as to their minds, all liberals are Communists.

Your definition is, as usual, incomplete. What does that make leftists, like yourself, who say everyone on the right are tyrants?

 

[MarcATL]

I guess Paul isnt going to answer me.

Anyone can rattle of supposed collective freedoms weve lost but no one ever seems to be able to site personal freedoms lost.

That's a disingenuous question. The loss of liberty occurs when the government CAN make an arbitrary victim of ANYONE, not when it actually DOES make an arbitrary victim of ME.

I, personally have not been spied upon without a warrant by federal agents (that I know of). I have certainly not been locked up without benefit of counsel, without charges, without due process, and without any recourse as an "enemy combatant." But if I must fear that the government MAY do these things to me any time it chooses, then I have lost liberty, even if, so far, it has NOT chosen to do them.

Remember:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

- Pastor Martin Niemöller

They don't ask that question when it comes to the 2nd Amendment though.

It isn't "leftists" that have done this, and most certainly what it under discussion in this thread is not a "left-wing" initiative.

Any time you have the federal government doing what the Founders never intended for it to do, it is a 'leftist' initiative regardless of who originated it.

Statists/leftism/progressivism/modern American liberalism = bigger, more inclusive, more authoritarian government.

Classical liberalism/libertarianism/modern American conservatism = no more government than is necessary to perform its assigned constitutional responsibilities and more individual liberty and responsibility.

This is the biggest crop of cowdung this side of Hey-luh Baw-buh's Miss-suh-say-pay!

But in order for us to know, which would benefit us not at all, it would also be necessary for those who intend to commit unspeakable murder and mayhem against any American citizen they can to know. And that would benefit them a great deal.

You DO understand that is what the Patriot Act is for don't you? To keep evil people from committing unspeakable pain, suffering chaos, mayhem, and murder against you and yours? When there is ANY evidence that it is being used for ANY other purpose, then we might have something to talk about. As it is, we elect people to represent us to be our eyes and ears and protect us against unauthorized use of a tool necessary to secure our rights.

They already had the tools. With the Patriot Act they only took more of our freedom away.

I'll ask again.....

WHAT FREEDOMS HAVE YOU LOST?

What guns have been taken away? Yet the Teabaggers were up in arms, and still are about it. I didn't see you asking that question then hack.

"They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Yes, and this was done by the Bush Regime w/Herr Rumsfeld and Herr Vader, I mean Herr Cheney. All with the cheering of folks on the Right like yourself, and all the Republicans. If the Bush Regime was a Star Wars episode/movie it would be titled 'Rise of The Neo-Cons'

The idea of "safety" as was made popular during the Neo-Con phase of Government is a myth. It's a political dog-whistle to gather the troops of support. There's no such thing as "safety," anything can happen to any of us at any time. The party that proports to be Christians should know better. It's really sickening!

And continued under Herr Obama by Frau Napolitano and Herr Holder. Nice of you to show your normal partisan stupidity.

Hey tool...it was the Bush Regime that STARTED it. Where. was. your. protest. then? Your faux-outrage now is impotent.

 

[lizzie]

I agree with Franklin's premise. Liberty is a human desire, but very few humans can handle living a life of self-determination and the responsibilities which come with it.

 

[Contumacious]

"They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

No, I gave up liberty for what I thought was permanent security.

I loves the welfare/warfare state. Parasitism is my genes, I can't help it.

You know, it's not like we are a quadrillion dollars in the hole. The deficit is only 15 TTTTTTTTTTTrillion. And the super committee is busy trying to correct the situation. Have faith.

Esther La Vista

.

 

[Dragon]

It certainly was the beginning of the sacrifice of liberty when the Federal government got the right to know what amount of money I make. That was the beginning of state control of our lives. If they know what you have, they can control what you get.

As I said, I understand the reasoning behind considering the income tax a loss of liberty, even though I disagree with it. But how is it a loss of liberty for the sake of security? How does the income tax make us more secure, or even pretend to?

The end of states rights in the federal government gave foreign governments more control over our government through embasies than our own state governments have. This was when we started down the road to internationalism. The states were given the selection of Senators as states as a check on federal power. The people already had direct election of Representatives as their own check on State government and spending by the federal government.

Senators are still elected on a state basis, and equal representation by state regardless of the state's population preserves the essential character of the Senate. Electing Senators directly instead of indirectly via the state legislature makes the Senate less aristocratic and more democratic, but does not lessen the state's influence over the federal government. (This is not to say that other things have not done so.)

The Senate is also a part of the federal government and always has been, no matter how Senators were elected, so it's hard to see how it can be a check on federal power. It IS federal power, or rather one-half of the legislative branch thereof.

In any case, there is a distinction to be drawn between liberty, which is an individual thing, and state sovereignty, which is not. Liberty consists in not having a boss -- in having no one holding power over one. With respect to government, liberty consists in having one's rights protected from arbitrary government intrusion. Since state government is still government, a state gaining power from or losing power to the federal government is neutral to the question of liberty. That's except to the extent that the state is either more or less likely to oppress. Historically, the states have been more likely than the federal government to opress in some ways (e.g. Jim Crow, sodomy laws, blue laws, etc.) but the federal government has been more likely to oppress in others (e.g. the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Red Scare, or the Patriot Act). All of which is to say that there is a danger of oppression from either the state or the federal government, confined to the areas of authority held by each.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Exactly what liberty are you now missing that you had before?

I hear this statement all the time but I see no difference in my freedoms.

Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.

In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment's protections apply only when the searched party has a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted

 

[Contumacious]

It certainly was the beginning of the sacrifice of liberty when the Federal government got the right to know what amount of money I make. That was the beginning of state control of our lives. If they know what you have, they can control what you get.

As I said, I understand the reasoning behind considering the income tax a loss of liberty, even though I disagree with it. But how is it a loss of liberty for the sake of security? How does the income tax make us more secure, or even pretend to?

.

What kind of stupid question is that?

Because of the income tax fedgov hired new revenuers to chase us down.

They get a steady paycheck, federal blue cross and blue shield, immunity from prosecution for transgressing upon our rights, and a government issued glock.

The income tax provides them security.

So, obviously, you have no idea about what you are talking about.

.

 

[paulitician]

Why are IRS employees armed? It's an interesting question.

 

[Contumacious]

Why are IRS employees armed? It's an interesting question.

People like you scare them.

You would think that after 12 years of government schooling people would have learned to roll over and play dead.

Americans should do the right thing - go over the nearest police station and turn in their firearms.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

.