Did not the President and the Congress take an oath to protect and defend us from terrorists??

[kentuck]

No!

They took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

We should remember that when they are stuttering and making excuses about their secret cabals and spying on the American people.

[DirkGently]

1. At this point, it's simply raw power being defended. And paychecks

for security firms. They'd poop a solid gold egg if an actual terrorist wafted across the radar at any point.

[GlashFordan]

2. Oh...all you constitution huggers

Sounding like a bunch of RWNJ!!

[DirkGently]

4. Ayuh. Total closet Civil Rights nut here. Looks like

there are more, happy to see.

[indepat]

3. Big brother's spying on everyone is not primarily to keep us safe from terra, as euphemistically

claimed imo, but to keep the establishment (including Wall Street) free from interference from those who would voice dissent over big brother's and Wall Street's chicaneries, illegalities, unconstitutional acts, and other nonfeasance and misfeasance.

[90-percent]

5. They all took an oath

And they are not honoring it. They are violating the Constitution and taking away our Constitutional Rights.

Isn't this the very definition of treason?

If not treason, sedition?

crimes against humanity, perhaps?

Anyway, it's pretty fucking serious and it was drummed into me for the first 65% of my formal education that our Constitution was what made us better than the commies. Totalitarian Fascist Police States were bad and we don't do that! It's what makes us GREAT!

I had to read both 1984 and Animal Farm in that time period, also. We were warned about these times we live in. The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave don't let Big Brother take over our country. And corporate tyranny.

-90% Jimmy

[Hydra]

16. That's funny cognative dissonace I'm suffering from too

They told us about how great all of these freedoms were, and how bad the Reds were for denying their citizens the same. We were also taught not to be afraid of even nuclear armageddon...and now we're supposed to toss all of that aside and be afraid of some terrorists??

They didn't lay the groundwork needed for that sort of propaganda 180.

[90-percent]

19. Thank you

Very perceptive - "we were taught not to be afraid even of nuclear armageddon." I was in first grade and recall nuke drills. go in the halls and ball yourself up against the wall. This may have been the start of my healthy distrust of authority. I was thinking to myself that this would be scant protection in the event of an overhead nuke explosion. It's barely a protection against our modern tornado's, fer chrissakes. Do these friggin' adults around here know how stupid this is?

Yes yes yes, the 180 from proud and fearless to be vewwy vewwy afwaid! It's almost like our own democratic government wanted to morph itself into a totalitarian fascist police state and used the tragedy and governmental failure of 9-11 to begin in earnest.

We are now bombarded in the news with an almost daily loss of yet another former constitutional right. Anybody know how many rights we've involuntarily surrendered since 9-11? Shirley there's a website themed with such info, maybe?

-90% Jimmy

[Ed Suspicious]

6. They are fucking up and how dare they put me in a position to align my thinking with the tea party!

Seriously, now!

[Boomerproud]

13. They are indeed fucking up (both Pubbies and Dems)

but NOTHING will ever align my position to that of the tea party.

[smallcat88]

7. The Constitution?

Do you know how many members of Congress have actually read the Constitution (awake, anyway)? I'd bet we could count the number on 1 hand. O'Donnell on The Last Word a couple of weeks ago explained how the Constitution clearly defines treason as aiding an enemy during wartime - that's a declared war, declared by Congress, as in the kind we haven't had since WWll. But half of Congress is still referring to Snowden as a traitor, even though, legally by our Constitution that's not possible. Unless he just time-warped in from helping the Nazi's about 70 years ago. Our government has turned into a very bad joke.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Defending the constitution means defending its political structures

i.e. how we elect leaders, the delegation of powers between the branches. If a terrorist group waged a campaign to use violence to alter US law then they would be attacking the constitutional authority of the legislative branch and the president would be obligated to defend their prerogative.

That being said the government cannot abrogate the Bill of Rights and other constitutional constraints designed to impede the inevitable slide to authoritarianism all nations seemed destined to undertake.

[Egalitarian Thug]

9. K&R Right to the point. n/t

[NRaleighLiberal]

10. $$$. it's always about $$$. n/t

[limpyhobbler]

11. I'm all for fighting terrorists.

Actual terrorists.

Collecting info on every person is not the same as fighting terrorists. It's just a big slush fund for an unaccountable government bureaucracy.

If they have an actual investigation of a specific person, they should should get a specific warrant and review that person's info.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. When Bush was President here everyone seemed to think the Constitution was important

[sabrina 1]

14. Stop 'screaming' about that 'quaint old document'. Lol, someone actually said that here today.

'I swear to defend and protect the American People from any rag tag band of thugs in any part of the world so our Defense Contractors/Mercenaries can make piles of money, and I also swear to scare the living daylights out of them so that they will fully support our efforts in these endeavors'!

It's a scam, and some people are still falling for it.

[beevul]

15. Well said, and spot on.

[1-Old-Man]

17. Exactly! Old son, or old gal, as the case may be, you hit the nail on the head

I've noticed you do that pretty often. It is awfully good to see that at least some of the people here think the Constitution matters, no matter who is in Office.

[Vattel]

18. It seems to me that Obama often behaves like a naive utilitarian.

He is definitely a pragmatist in his approach to legal interpretation. Depending on the issue, he sees the Constitution either as a tool to be used to promote his goals or as an obstacle to achieving his goals that must be overcome.