Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So which Amendment is it that permits subordination of the Constitution to "safety from terrorism?" [View all]iemitsu
(3,888 posts)22. I applaud your post and agree with what you say but
I would like add one thing. It is the government's job to protect us, not by taking our rights away (which doesn't work anyway), but by administering our country in a fashion that does not increase our level of threat. Our policies ought to curry friendship not enemies.
It is the decisions that Congress and the President, and the uber-elite who control them, make that puts Americans at risk. Corporate control of our government is the threat. The phone logs of congress would likely uncover the source of all the awful legislation and foreign policy decisions that have resulted in a violent world where some victims of our policies might want to hurt us.
And they want to spy on us as if we were the problem?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
136 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So which Amendment is it that permits subordination of the Constitution to "safety from terrorism?" [View all]
markpkessinger
Jun 2013
OP
Eloquently stated, and well written. I applaud your position and agree with every point.
Melinda
Jun 2013
#1
History is replete with fallen republics; with "terrorism" and oppressive govts.
Melinda
Jun 2013
#92
What's the scariest is the selection of the term "terrorism". Perfect for morphing into
snappyturtle
Jun 2013
#7
You speak of the Phucking Phounding Phathers of Philadelphia as if they could envision . .
Major Hogwash
Jun 2013
#46
The fact that the we even have any Amendments is proof that the original Constitution is NOT
DontTreadOnMe
Jun 2013
#123
Madison and Adams already were in favor of a court with no accountability or check
ConservativeDemocrat
Jun 2013
#85
I just posted my question as a separate OP and would be thrilled if you would comment.
reusrename
Jun 2013
#32
So why has the Patriot act in effect made them NOT reasonable by tearing down FISA and warrants?
cascadiance
Jun 2013
#35
Which amendment says specifically, bullets and today's guns and stand your ground is legal?
graham4anything
Jun 2013
#29
The founders wrote a special FISA-type version of the constitution, that we're not allowed to see.
hughee99
Jun 2013
#39
All of the Amendments are subject to subordination, interpretation, bending just a bit...
AndyA
Jun 2013
#45
Until the Congress has taken every plausible step to constitutionally keep safe us from gun
indepat
Jun 2013
#48
If they didn't suspend Constitutional rights, they'd have to face a truth they do not want to
gtar100
Jun 2013
#49
Excellent post. Just scroll down to the bottom where it says "Kissinger Amendment" n/t
Catherina
Jun 2013
#51
I am not familar with the latter position, if you can think of the name of the person that made
GoneFishin
Jun 2013
#111
Wow - Standing up for the Bill of Rights is now an "extreme" position . . .
markpkessinger
Jun 2013
#114
Well that's a long post but you apparently dont understand that the terrorist will get us
rhett o rick
Jun 2013
#97
Where in the constitution does it say Zimmy can shoot a kid coward style and it would have not even
graham4anything
Jun 2013
#101