Problem is, even if most are overturned, if even one remains, then we're worse off than before. The historical evidence is that rights, once lost, are rarely regained.

For the bits that are overturned, you can thank those same 'alarmist libertarians', without who most conservatives and almost all liberals wouldn't fight the issues.

The very fact that those laws got passed in the first place is alarming. It means that a majority of our elected representatives have no idea what our country's founding ideals are.

Even in the Supreme Court, there's only a slight bias towards liberty remaining. It would be interesting to see how many of the current Supremes would agree with this:

============================================
"Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise, when
rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp
and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper; and that
the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril, unless
established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them
that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The
Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in
war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes
of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving
more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that
any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of
government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism...."

U.S. Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1866)

JonasM

 

I think that responses in crisis are always, by definition, reactionary. And that is what we are seeing now. It doesn't mean that we have to become cycnical and think things can't change. We also do a disservice to ourselves by sounding like chicken-little.

 

But something must be done if we think that things are going in a bad direction.

We cannot sit back, wave our hands, and expect things will go well on their own. Change takes effort.

 

http://www.infowars.com

Click on the "POLICE STATE" tab on the left side halfway down the page. If this guy still sells the "POLICE STATE" videos everyone should at least view or own them. You thought you knew what was going on until you watched this video.

 

The police don't have the time and manpower to even consider monitoring citizens' personal lives. The increase in drug use/abuse over the last 2 decades has led to an increase in crime that has the police stretched pretty thin. The number of police per capita has not increased to account for this.

Most police agencies have ride-along programs that allow citizens to spend a shift with a patrol officer and learn what police work is really like. See if the police in your area have such a program and ride a couple of times - it's an eye-opening experience.

 

The reasoning behind the ability to get that warrant is what is in question. The police have the right to search with a warrant, that is not in dispute, but the "reasons" that such a warrant is issued is what is in question.
When that warrant is issued under what was once considered unreasonable circumstances, (before the Patriot Act) you need to step back and ask are we moving towards a police state.

Security is offered at a high price, when that price is freedom.

 

Here's an example of stuff that worries me:

from http://www.cato.org/new/06-02/06-20-02r.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
June 20, 2002

Bush And Ashcroft Assail Habeas Corpus, Scholar Says

WASHINGTON--Yesterday, the Bush administration asserted sweeping new police powers over the American people. In a legal brief filed with a federal appellate court, the Department of Justice asserted that Yaser Esam Hamdi, who is an American citizen, can be held incommunicado on a military installation as an "enemy combatant." A lower court ruled that Hamdi should have access to an attorney, and the Justice Dept appealed that ruling to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Timothy Lynch, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice had the following comments on the issue:

"The implications of the federal government's brief go far beyond the Hamdi matter. The Bush administration has now asserted that (a) citizens can be taken into custody as enemy combatants; (b) that, beyond such battlefield detainees, citizens can also be taken off the streets of any American town; and

 

I have to agree with TheS about all this. Extremists love to complain about how the government spies on us, etc, etc, yet somehow I don't see them all lining up to leave the country. You all know where the door is, no one is stopping you.

You can't have it all. Period. If you want the government to track terrorists than you better be willing to prove you're not one every now and again. I'm a big believer in having nothing to hide therefore having nothing to be afraid of.

I can't believe people think we are just a short step away from 1984 or Brazil or some other completely wacked out book/movie.

How about this? For a fun exercise pretend being responsible for 300 million people who want to be free to do drugs, steal, commit crime etc, AND be protected from every little thing including their own stupidity. Throw the folks in the government a bone, for crying out loud. Mexico is fine option if you want lawlessness.

-Dan

 

Oh jeez - cut me some slack will you!!

I get so tired of hearing the ol' "if you don't like it leave" BS. Same crap from Spiro Agnew, Tricky Dick and their associated fascists during the Viet Nam war. They were full of it then and those who say it now are also.

Those of us who loved our country then did not leave precisely because we did love it. In fact, I stayed AND served in the military. But because I felt a duty to serve did not mean that I loaned out my brain and/or morals, BECAUSE I felt loyalty to my country.

No country, including ours, is perfect and, thus, we citizens who love her must be ready to jump in to help the US stay the best. Just because what we have is the best available does not mean that we ought not try to improve it for ourselves and our children.

Liberty is worth fighting for and that is true whether the person who seeks to limit it has good or bad motives. We humans can and do make mistakes and particularly so when times are dangerous or we are fanatics towards a particular point of view. Who can doubt the sincerity of the suicide bombers? Yet, they clearly are wrong.

There IS room for disagreement w/o demanding that the opponent leave the country.

 

Oh, now you decide to be less vociferous on the evils of Uncle Sam?

Your previous posts sound like the folks in Montana who form armies, ready to fight back when the Feds come to incarcerate them for breathing oxygen, raising their childing to fear God or for brushing their teeth between meals.

Not saying you're one of those people, but as someone else said, the Gov just doesn't have the time or inclination to be a thousandth as nosy as conspiracy theorists like to think.

-Dan