A question for general discussion...

[Bullypulpit]

Since 9/11, there have been a number of laws passed, including the USA PATRIOT Act and its successor, the more recent Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the currently being debated Protect America Act, not to mention the executive orders handed down by the Bush administration. It should be readily apparent that these pieces of legislation and executive orders have less to do with protecting America than they do with gathering powers to Executive branch and undermining the Constitution, all under the guise of "national security". It is also readily apparent that these powers usurp the constitutionally established separation of powers thus undermining the checks and balances which protect the democratic process in this country.

My question then, is this..."How is supporting and defending the Constitution by seeking to roll back or limit these attempts to undermine said document, incompatible with supporting and defending the Constitution?" After all, absent the Constitution, there is no America.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Since 9/11, there have been a number of laws passed, including the USA PATRIOT Act and its successor, the more recent Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the currently being debated Protect America Act, not to mention the executive orders handed down by the Bush administration. It should be readily apparent that these pieces of legislation and executive orders have less to do with protecting America than they do with gathering powers to Executive branch and undermining the Constitution, all under the guise of "national security". It is also readily apparent that these powers usurp the constitutionally established separation of powers thus undermining the checks and balances which protect the democratic process in this country.

So your going to ask a question AFTER proclaiming what it REALLY means?

My question then, is this..."How is supporting and defending the Constitution by seeking to roll back or limit these attempts to undermine said document, incompatible with supporting and defending the Constitution?" After all, absent the Constitution, there is no America.

In a war Government must protect the people. In fact the Constitution provides that even the most cherished legal right can be removed if conditions warrent it. But do pretend otherwise.

Further last I checked all this legislative acts are time controlled and require a new vote after a set period of time. They are not permanent at all. All in keeping with the intent of the Constitution and the purpose of Government.

Add in that the Courts have and continue to hear and rule on these acts and either declare them Constitutional or Unconstitutional. Further Executive orders only effect the Executive and only last as long as the next President allows them too.

 

[AllieBaba]

And people forget...these laws come into existence, in one form or another, every time we have a war.

And we're still a free country.

Also, there's a time line on the Patriot Act, something people either don't know or choose to ignore when they get all worked up. It isn't a law that will exist forever. It comes up for review and approval on a regular basis, and there will come a time when it's reviewed and canned, when it's no longer needed.