Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Presidential Candidates & Civil Liberties
Civil liberties issues tend to be ignored in Presidential campaigns. This article is an exception. Most candidates have very little say except vaguely mouthing support. It is difficult to figure out where our two Presidential candidates stand. However, it is fairly obvious that Obama is not a supporter of the individual rights approach to the Second Amendment announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 in D.C. v. Heller (e.g., "Bittergate," appointment of Sotomayor to Supreme Court). It is somewhat puzzling, and disturbing to some, that Romney chose Robert Bork to head his "Justice Advisory Committee." In this age of anti-terrorism, cyber-snooping, and mass murder, it is not looking good for civil liberties in the U.S.-- no matter who is in the White House.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice post about law. keep it up.
ReplyDeletePersonal Injury Attorney Tampa Florida
Having spent a good portion of my life in the Army and Navy, I view civil liberties from the context of friendly vs hostile environments. There's a time and place when reasonable action(s)and/or force are warranted and necessary to secure the peace. That said, the U.S. Constitution's "Bill of Rights" always remained central to my military oaths. National security, however, is the federal government's constitutional mandate. Liberals at both ends of the left/right spectrum remind me of animal rights activists who enjoy their steaks and leather car seats. These folks don't have a clue about the realities of the agriculture needed to give them such niceties of life. The same goes for the security and freedoms enjoyed by most Americans. It's easy to be an arm chair liberal or libertarian. That is until you've faced real evil.
ReplyDeleteAs a side note, I find it disturbing that socialist wannabes, like Obama and his cronies, view restrictions on the 2nd Amendment as a way to curb crime. The right to keep and bear arms has never been a law enforcement matter. Stopping criminal activities is their business. Obama's DOJ not only failed at this responsibility, but actually contributed to heinous criminal acts via fast and furious. Having assumed ownership of this atrocity by declaring presidential immunity for his AG, Obama should remember the words of a past democrat president who said, "the buck stops here". It's high time he and his gang are relieved of their duties this November.
44:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the perspective. It is an ominous responsibility to be charged with protecting the nation.
You are right, it is always easy for arm-chair observers to be critical. It is very difficult to find a happy medium between security and liberty in an uncertain and dangerous world. I bet most of us, if we were in charge, would probably err on the side of security. However, history shows totally unjustified abuses in the name of national security (internment on West Coast Japanese in WWII). As you suggest, perhaps we need to separate national security from domestic crime and analyze these separately. Domestic crime, however, is not a national security issue. Terrorists are not going to rely on firearms. At least on the domestic crime side, I think civil liberties should get the benefit of the doubt.I wish there were some easy answers on where to draw the line. Thanks for your thought provoking comment.
Your insightful reply is appreciated. I'm glad you used the example about American citizens of Japanese heritage being confined during the second world war. That truly was a case of unreasonableness based on irrational and racist fears. Americans with German and Italian ancestry didn't face similar government injustice as a group. Leave it to the socialist wannabe progressives FDR and the property grabbing governor of California, Earl Warren, to violate those citizens' fundamental civil rights.
ReplyDeleteRobert:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the compliment. I hope you and everyone has a safe and happy Labor Day!
In this matter the Obama make his statement clear that he will not support this bill.
ReplyDeleteLegal: Nice to have someone from the UK involved. What bill are you talking about.
ReplyDeleteThere. I've same it in a very range of various ways in which. Do not co-mingle your personal funds and your insurance settlement funds. It was the well define article about law and justice.
ReplyDeleteThanks'Regards
Personal Injury Attorney Las Vegas