July US Presidential Strawpoll

[Rob Lister]

?

You seem very concerned that Bush is somehow trampling our civil rights. Why does that concern you, a Dane?

Even were it true, do our civil rights, so trampled, exceed those you enjoy without such trampling?

I guess we'd have to come to some sort of mutual agreement as to what constitutes a civil right.

Certainly some civil rights have been trampled in light of 9/11. That's not uncommon for this nation. It happens every every now and again and the supreme court is usually nice enough about it to take their sweet time deciding the rights should be untrampled.

I don't know the history of your country as well as you seem to know ours so tell me, does your nation do likewise in times of national crisis?

Still, just so you know, Kerry voted for both the PA and the war --- though it would be tough to get him to admit it now.

I agree we should have more than two parties but that has nothing to do with either Bush or Kerry. Separate issue.

 

[shanek]

I'm not Ed but I'll pretend you asked me as well....

Right after you show me where in constitution the right to privacy exists, if you are such a distinguished US Constitution scholar.

I'm not DD but I'll pretend you asked me as well....

It does not have to be in the Constitution to be a right of the people. That's in the 9th Amendment. It DOES have to be in the Constitution to be a power of government. So, at worst, the Federal government can only invade privacy to the extent allowed by the Constitution—such as having to go through the process of a Warrant issued by Oath or Affirmation etc. to conduct a search and siezure.

 

[shanek]

And I still disagree with you. If somebody feels anti-Bush strongly enough then they should vote for Kerry. Nobody else has a snowballs chance in hell of defeating Bush so if somebody really wants Bush out there is only one choice. I'm not saying it isn't a shame that there aren't any other viable candidates, but it's too late to complain about that for this election.

And when will it become too late to complain about it for the next election?

 

[shanek]

I know Shanek will have a stroke but I don't believe that our Constitution is a suicide pact. I do believe that we are at war and that the war has been going on since the seventh century. And I also don't believe that you can opt out of this war.

Our Constitution has a method for dealing with this. It isn't being followed.

 

[wjousts]

You don't opt for a house that's on fire when yours is flooded either, if you want throw analogies around.

Well, if you're going to throw my analogies around you might try not managling it in the process.
The house is America, therefore opting for another house would be moving to another country so your comment doesn't make sense. And it's my analogy

 

[Rob Lister]

Our Constitution has a method for dealing with this. It isn't being followed.

Some might see that as a very, very good thing. The founding fathers took more of an all-or-nothing attitude toward this. That's a bit frightening to most folk. How about you?

 

[shanek]

Some might see that as a very, very good thing. The founding fathers took more of an all-or-nothing attitude toward this. That's a bit frightening to most folk. How about you?

I can only conclude that you dont' have the first idea what you're talking about. What is this, but an all-or-nothing attitude? "If you're not with us, you're against us"? Huh? Back with our founders, we pretty much kept to ourselves and were very secure. Now that we're meddling in affairs all over the world, we're open and vulnerable to terrorist attacks. So how would the old situation be more frightening than this one?

 

[Rob Lister]

I can only conclude that you dont' have the first idea what you're talking about. What is this, but an all-or-nothing attitude? "If you're not with us, you're against us"? Huh? Back with our founders, we pretty much kept to ourselves and were very secure. Now that we're meddling in affairs all over the world, we're open and vulnerable to terrorist attacks. So how would the old situation be more frightening than this one?

Perhaps your conclusion is an accurate one. Maybe I misinterrupted your implication that...

Our Constitution has a method for dealing with this. It isn't being followed.

What this were you talking about?

I thought you were speaking about the formal suspension of Habeas Corpus. If you were speaking of something different, please clarify.

 

[Ed]

Perhaps your conclusion is an accurate one. Maybe I misinterrupted your implication that...



What this were you talking about?

I thought you were speaking about the formal suspension of Habeas Corpus. If you were speaking of something different, please clarify.

I was under the opinion that material witnesses could sorta be held for a long time.

 

[shanek]

What this were you talking about?

Terrorist and other attacks on our homeland.

 

[Rob Lister]

Terrorist and other attacks on our homeland.

Expound and expand then. If you were not talking about the constitutional suspension of Habeas Corpus, what were you talking about?

If you were talking about that, why do you conclude that I don't have any idea what I'm talking about?

 

[shanek]

Expound and expand then. If you were not talking about the constitutional suspension of Habeas Corpus, what were you talking about?

From Article I Section 8, Congress has the power to declare war and grant letters of marque and reprisal. Article II gives the President the power to act as commander-in-chief of the armed forces and can issue the actions set out by Congress, which Constitutionally can include rules of capture. Article III provides for the ability to capture and punish those who levy war against the US and allows Congress to set the punishment, with certain limitations. Article IV charges the Federal government with the duty of protecting the states from invasion and domestic violence. The Bill of Rights sets out limitations for due process. And so on.

There are ways terrorism can be fought Constitutionally. They just aren't doing it.

 

[a_unique_person]

I read an article in the paper the other day, (no link), on a different topic, but the basic idea was that only ten percen of the population is like the nutters here at JREF, that is, interested enough in politics and opinion to really take an active interest in the topics.

The clear preference for Kerry doesn't necessarily mean much, as the opinion of the majority of people is not reflected here.

That still doesn't mean it's not time to resurrect this thread.

 

[nightwind]

Poll

Going with Kerry, am a citizen.

Reasons - l differ with Bush policies concerning war, stem cell research, environment, abortion, personal liberties, etc. And I don't feel safer. In fact I feel more unsafe.

Also think others in administration, such as Ashcroft are very dangerous to our freedoms.

But also has tendency to be too much of religious zealot and might follow voices in head or angels or whatever, which could lead to even greater midjudgments down the road.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Straw poll == BS.

If there's anything the right wing website Free Republic has to contribute to our understanding of the world, it's their organized "Freeping" of polls.

It proves the nonsensicalness of on-line polls once and for all.

I mean it man!

 

[Brian]

From Article I Section 8, Congress has the power to declare war and grant letters of marque and reprisal. Article II gives the President the power to act as commander-in-chief of the armed forces and can issue the actions set out by Congress, which Constitutionally can include rules of capture. Article III provides for the ability to capture and punish those who levy war against the US and allows Congress to set the punishment, with certain limitations. Article IV charges the Federal government with the duty of protecting the states from invasion and domestic violence. The Bill of Rights sets out limitations for due process. And so on.

There are ways terrorism can be fought Constitutionally. They just aren't doing it.

Although I don't agree with everything you write, no one should ever say that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Nasarius]

US citizen, voting for Kerry.

Why? Because giving Bush and the people in his administration another four years in power without having to worry about re-election is a very frightening scenario indeed. Oh, and I liked Edwards in the primaries. He's coherent.

You want to talk specific encroachments on civil liberties? Bush has certainly been trying:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/samesex.marriage/index.html

I personally know two girls who are quite in love, and it's been really surprising how their relationship parallels mine with my girlfriend. Anyone who's against their right to marriage earns a big "fuck you" from me.

 

[jenspen]

Australian citizen, and would vote for any Democrat candidate before I would vote for a Republican one because of the philosophies of the parties rather than because of individuals.

That said, I am going to miss Bush - the funniest political leader since Joh Bjelke-Petersen - I like a good laugh.

 

[Ed]

From Article I Section 8, Congress has the power to declare war and grant letters of marque and reprisal. Article II gives the President the power to act as commander-in-chief of the armed forces and can issue the actions set out by Congress, which Constitutionally can include rules of capture. Article III provides for the ability to capture and punish those who levy war against the US and allows Congress to set the punishment, with certain limitations. Article IV charges the Federal government with the duty of protecting the states from invasion and domestic violence. The Bill of Rights sets out limitations for due process. And so on.

There are ways terrorism can be fought Constitutionally. They just aren't doing it.

Yes, but wouldn't the specfics have to be codifed? Is that not the nature of the law making process?

 

[shanek]

Yes, but wouldn't the specfics have to be codifed? Is that not the nature of the law making process?

Yes, but those specifics have to operate in the realm of the powers specifically given by the Constitution.