Samantha Atkins wrote,
> I am more concerned by claims that since we are in a state of war, it
> is permissible to suspend various guarantees of our rights and freedoms.
> If we are not actually "in a state of war" then these claims are bogus
> and should be opposed as false.
>
> If so this seems to be a big gaping hole in Constitutional checks
> and balances.
This is the "clear and present danger" clause. The government has to follow
the constitution unless there is a "clear and present danger" that requires
more desperate action. The government has always had the ability to bypass,
ignore or suspend any constitutional restrictions whenever it deems
necessary. Luckily, we have three separate branches of government. It is
less likely that those who make the rules, those who enforce the rules, and
those who judge the rules will all abuse their authority at the same time
for the same agenda.
-- Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant, Newstaff Inc. <www.Newstaff.com> Board of Directors, Extropy Institute <www.Extropy.org> Early Supporter, Pro-Act <www.ProgressAction.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:54 MDT