2 ms·
> I think this is very, very dangerous. I agree. But, we should not be surprised since Jefferson told us "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." I bel
by graycat 13y ago
> I think this is very, very dangerous.
I agree. But, we should not be
surprised since Jefferson told us
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
I believe, certainly I hope, that the SCOTUS
will see the danger with crystal
clarity. E.g., one of the main concerns
of the founding fathers and objectives
of the Constitution was to limit the
powers of the central government and
just because of the "dangers". I'd
bet that the SCOTUS will see all this
and not weasel out with some
nonsense about "aiding enemies of the US".
We need to protect the Constitution
and the rest of the US, not sacrifice
one for the other -- yup, Franklin
said something like that.
- enraged_camel 13y ago>>I agree. But, we should not be surprised since Jefferson told us "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." What if SCOTUS decides to interpret this as "the price of liberty is eternal surveillance"?
- graycat 13y agoThen we are in deep trouble. We'd have lots of demonstrations in the streets, put new people into Congress, and eventually hold a Constitutional Convention to patch up the Constitution. It would take a long time and might be bloody and might even ruin the US. But I believe that the founding fathers saw this possibility and designed the system to keep this from happening. In particular, the SCOTUS is darned serious; they understand with crystal clarity the threats to the Constitution and the US. Their main job is to defend the Constitution. To this end, they are plenty bright, are awash in power and independence, have plenty of resources, and do have the respect of the citizens. So, I believe that the SCOTUS will do the right things.