Welcome to the Fifth Carnival of Principled Government, a carnival which strives to uphold our founders’ vision for our nation as found in our founding documents. In honor of East High’s recent victory in the We the People: The Citizen and the Consti…

The smell of curry makes me physically ill.

Should we ban curry in Indian restaurants, or do people have the freedom to choose whether to enter?

My mother is highly allergic to perfume, incense, candles, deodorizers, and bacon cooked on too high a heat.

Maybe thes anti smokers will go after these other things when they are done trampling on smokers and business owners rights.

I haven’t read the book, but I am reminded of the Jefferson v. Hamilton concepts of the constitution. Hamilton: “If it doesn’t say I can’t, I can”. Jefferson: “If it doesn’t say you can, you can’t”.

The “Elastic Clause” in Article I has been well used by our Congress to pass laws. It offers a great deal of latitude in deciding what is ‘necessary and proper’ for our government.

The idea that the military cannot operate in the US is simply an artifact of the civil war, racist slave owners, and compromise. There is no constitutional issue with it, and congress could change that at any time. The civil war itself proves that there is no moral or constitutional issue with military action against enemy combatants, even if they are US citizens.

>> this is an expansion of power

No, it isn’t. This is simply the proper removal of a very recent restriction on power that the commander in chief has ALWAYS had. If you think differently, then you need a big history lesson.

>> future presidents will abuse in ways that frighten you

You are quite naive. As Clinton proved, the ONLY protection we have from the president, is a careful review of his character prior to electing him. There is nothing in the bill of rights, no law, and no check or balance that can POSSIBLY protect us from someone in that position who simply disregards them.

The Bill of Rights applies to all people in the United States. If the government wants to incarcerate these people they need some level of due process.

Look at it this way. Right now the NSA can tap your phone with no judicial oversight. Then the executive office can have you snatched out of your home and sent to Guantanamo as an enemy combatant. And you have no recourse to fight them.

As I’ve said before, I actually believe Bush is well-intentioned, and is going to try to limit this power to legitimate terrorists (not that I think the government is competent enough to actually do so). But this is an expansion of power, and it is something that— I GUARANTEE— future presidents will abuse in ways that frighten you.

On a battlefield, things are different. But when our government declares the entire world its battlefield, don’t you think that gives the Commander In Chief basically UNLIMITED power?

Ahh, excuse me, but you’re quite confused. You see, when the president comes out of his office, he can either go in the office of the Joint Chiefs (JC), or he can go in the AG office. The AG deals with Law & Order at the federal level. The JCs deal with protecting the US from external threats.

In the AG office, warrants are required, because the only purpose of a warrant is for law & order, ie to ensure that eventual prosecution in court is not hindered by violation of the 4th amendment.

In the JC office, warrants are irrelevant and in 200 years of US history, have never before been mentioned. Not one viewer of countless Bond movies have questioned whether Bond needs a warrant. He has the “license to Kill”, which kinda implies that he has also has the license to search e-mails and bug phones. To clarify, the Commander In Chief has the right to kill terrorists, and is certainly not bound by the 4th amendment.

Given that the NSA is on the JC side (hence the name), there is no moral or constitutional issue with the so called “warrantless” wire taps. That’s why this has passed muster with the supreme court.