[nonhuman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/op...nd&emc=rss

In 68 B.C. a terrorist attack on the Roman empire inspired Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great) to propose a law before the Senate to grant him 'supreme naval command [and] what amounted in fact to an absolute authority and uncontrolled power over everyone', in the words of the Greek historian Plutarch. The Senate was split over the decision, and riots literally broke out during the debates, but in the end the attack had cowed them enough to give in. Pompey was granted nearly the entire contents of the Roman Treasury (144 million sesterces) to fight the terrorists. It took less than three months for him to wipe the pirates (terrorists) from the Mediterranean.

And then, of course, he retired and the great Republic of Rome continued on as the great democratic experiment that it was, right? Wrong. 'It was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.', what a surprise.

We are not facing a new enemy, nor is the problem of terrorism a new one. There is no novel problem that requires a novel solution. There is no precedent to lead us to believe that, once the danger has passed, the freedoms and liberties we are giving up today will be returned to us. Nearly 2100 years ago the Roman republic faced the issue of terrorist and approached it in the same way we are today. The rise to power of Gaius Julius Caesar and the military coup by which he took the Roman republic for himself and created the Roman Empire were direct results of Pompey's 'war on terror'. By 49 B.C., only 19 years later, the Lex Gabinia had destroyed the very thing it was supposed to protect.

Are we better than the Romans? Will our constitution stand up against challenges any better than theirs did? I hope so. Because we have, over the past 5 years, passed a number of laws, the combination of which adds up to something very similar to Pompey's Lex Gabinia.

[marden]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/op...nd&emc=rss

In 68 B.C. a terrorist attack on the Roman empire inspired Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great) to propose a law before the Senate to grant him 'supreme naval command [and] what amounted in fact to an absolute authority and uncontrolled power over everyone', in the words of the Greek historian Plutarch. The Senate was split over the decision, and riots literally broke out during the debates, but in the end the attack had cowed them enough to give in. Pompey was granted nearly the entire contents of the Roman Treasury (144 million sesterces) to fight the terrorists. It took less than three months for him to wipe the pirates (terrorists) from the Mediterranean.

And then, of course, he retired and the great Republic of Rome continued on as the great democratic experiment that it was, right? Wrong. 'It was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.', what a surprise.

We are not facing a new enemy, nor is the problem of terrorism a new one. There is no novel problem that requires a novel solution. There is no precedent to lead us to believe that, once the danger has passed, the freedoms and liberties we are giving up today will be returned to us. Nearly 2100 years ago the Roman republic faced the issue of terrorist and approached it in the same way we are today. The rise to power of Gaius Julius Caesar and the military coup by which he took the Roman republic for himself and created the Roman Empire were direct results of Pompey's 'war on terror'. By 49 B.C., only 19 years later, the Lex Gabinia had destroyed the very thing it was supposed to protect.

Are we better than the Romans? Will our constitution stand up against challenges any better than theirs did? I hope so. Because we have, over the past 5 years, passed a number of laws, the combination of which adds up to something very similar to Pompey's Lex Gabinia.

Tell me when they compare al Qaeda and Iran to Hitler. Then we'll have something to write home about. It seems these NYTimers can only gripe and whine about Bush.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by marden

Tell me when they compare al Qaeda and Iran to Hitler. Then we'll have something to write home about. It seems these NYTimers can only gripe and whine about Bush.

Why would they compaire al Qaeda to Hitler? al Qaeda is a loosely organized, extra-national terrorist group. It makes much more sense to compare them to loosely organized, extra-national terrorist groups of the past than to modern European dictators with broad popular support. Now if you wanted to compare Bin Laden to Hitler or Ahmadinejad, then you might have a point (except that still, Bin Laden is not the leader of a nation).

Why don't you address the issues raised in the article rather than griping and whining about the NY Times?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

Tell me when they compare al Qaeda and Iran to Hitler.

It makes much more sense to compare Bush to Hitler. A man with an agenda, slowly eroding the government, until the government itself is dissolved. Because now apparently our government is "worthless".

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by goMac

It makes much more sense to compare Bush to Hitler. A man with an agenda, slowly eroding the government, until the government itself is dissolved. Because now apparently our government is "worthless".

Bush said we're an Empire now.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by marden

Tell me when they compare al Qaeda and Iran to Hitler.

Who are 'they'? The Bush Administration has already made this comparison; do you mean the NYT?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

It makes much more sense to compare Bush to Hitler. .

Only to moonbats.

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned.

This guy's history is a little off. I'm pretty sure the Senate had always had the "right" to declare someone "Dictator" to deal with immediate threats. That's why Cincinnatus was such the hero. He accepted the post of Dictator, dealt with the threat, and returned to his farm when it was over.

The real beginnings of the downfall of the Republic happened years earlier [than Pompey] when Sulla took the post of Dictator and proceeded to purge all his political enemies, lining up their severed heads outside the forum. What started as a merely political action quickly turned to greed, as people started to become "proscribed" merely for having wealth.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Only to moonbats.

Sensical does not always mean accurate....

[marden]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Who are 'they'? The Bush Administration has already made this comparison; do you mean the NYT?

Yes.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

It makes much more sense to compare Bush to Hitler. A man with an agenda, slowly eroding the government, until the government itself is dissolved. Because now apparently our government is "worthless".

And yet the fact is that Ahmadinejad is the one who is actually 'Hitlerian.' So I guess we know how to regard your powers of analysis.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego

This guy's history is a little off. I'm pretty sure the Senate had always had the "right" to declare someone "Dictator" to deal with immediate threats. That's why Cincinnatus was such the hero. He accepted the post of Dictator, dealt with the threat, and returned to his farm when it was over.

The real beginnings of the downfall of the Republic happened years earlier when Sulla took the post of Dictator and proceeded to purge all his political enemies and lined up their severed heads at outside the forum. What started as a merely political action quickly turned to greed, as people started to become "proscribed" merely for having wealth.

Even still, that would be consistent with a repeated trend of democracies/republics failing as a direct result of corruption and the use of power for inappropriate reasons. Sulla did it, Pompey (arguably) did it, Caesar did it, Hitler did it, Stalin did it, &c, and some would argue (including myself) that Bush is doing it.

Once it happens a first time it becomes easier and easier for future 'leaders' to do it, and more and more palatable to the populace.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by marden

And yet the fact is that Ahmadinejad is the one who is actually 'Hitlerian.' So I guess we know how to regard your powers of analysis.

Does the concept of a favorable comparison escape you?

[marden]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Why would they compaire al Qaeda to Hitler? al Qaeda is a loosely organized, extra-national terrorist group. It makes much more sense to compare them to loosely organized, extra-national terrorist groups of the past than to modern European dictators with broad popular support. Now if you wanted to compare Bin Laden to Hitler or Ahmadinejad, then you might have a point (except that still, Bin Laden is not the leader of a nation).

Why don't you address the issues raised in the article rather than griping and whining about the NY Times?

The point is that between all of the Bush and America haters posting and printing articles that bash the good guys, al Qaeda and Iran get a ticket to ride the P.R. gravy train for free. Some people would rather stand by and let the bigger danger kill them so they focus on the little danger that isn't really important.

In the movie, From Here To Eternity, when the japs were attacking Pearl Harbor a scene showed some officious company armorer who demanded the proper forms and authorization be presented before he would open the arms room and dispense rifles and ammo.

All this while the Zeros were flying overhead strafing and bombing.

The enemy is out THERE, gentlemen! NOT in HERE!

[marden]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Does the concept of a favorable comparison escape you?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by marden

The point is that between all of the Bush and America haters posting and printing articles that bash the good guys, al Qaeda and Iran get a ticket to ride the P.R. gravy train for free. Some people would rather stand by and let the bigger danger kill them so they focus on the little danger that isn't really important.

In the movie, From Here To Eternity, when the japs were attacking Pearl Harbor a scene showed some officious company armorer who demanded the proper forms and authorization be presented before he would open the arms room and dispense rifles and ammo.

All this while the Zeros were flying overhead strafing and bombing.

The enemy is out THERE, gentlemen!

There's this thing called 'scope' in any conversation, debate, or discussion. This particular discussion is about America and how current actions relate to an historical patter of Republics destroying themselves because of corrupt policies and abuse of power. Iran, though an interesting topic in it's own right and certainly worthy of discussion, is well outside the scope of this discussion. Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and Ahmadinejad are similarly not at all germane to this discussion. Nor are Pearl Harbor or the Japanese.

There's a reason that forums separate things out into different categories and, within those categories, different threads of discussion. It allows you to focus on one particular issue to the exclusion of others. Try it some time.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by marden

It's perfectly valid to compare Bush to Hitler. Or Clinton to Hitler, or me to Hitler. Just because you compare two things with each other does not mean you're saying they're the same or even similar, just that you're examining both in the context of each other to determine what similarities (if any) or differences (if any) there are.

Sure you don't disagree that Bush and Hitler are similar in that they're both male, do you?

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Even still, that would be consistent with a repeated trend of democracies/republics failing as a direct result of corruption and the use of power for inappropriate reasons. Sulla did it, Pompey (arguably) did it, Caesar did it, Hitler did it, Stalin did it, &c, and some would argue (including myself) that Bush is doing it.

Once it happens a first time it becomes easier and easier for future 'leaders' to do it, and more and more palatable to the populace.

I'm not disagreeing with his thesis, just his interpretation of history.

For example, Sulla did retire, and ultimately die, as one of the wealthiest men in the world, the point he was trying to sell. Pompey died a hunted man, murdered (IIRC) by the Phoenicians.

I'll admit, that Sulla gets ignored by history is one of my pet peeves. He's really quite the character.

[marden]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

There's this thing called 'scope' in any conversation, debate, or discussion. This particular discussion is about America and how current actions relate to an historical patter of Republics destroying themselves because of corrupt policies and abuse of power. Iran, though an interesting topic in it's own right and certainly worthy of discussion, is well outside the scope of this discussion. Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and Ahmadinejad are similarly not at all germane to this discussion. Nor are Pearl Harbor or the Japanese.

There's a reason that forums separate things out into different categories and, within those categories, different threads of discussion. It allows you to focus on one particular issue to the exclusion of others. Try it some time.

What was the story about the giant wooden horse that fooled the people and they THOUGHT it was a gift or a token of submission by the enemy? But there were enemy soldiers hiding inside and they came out when the recipients were sleepin off a buzz.

Well, you guys think the constitution is suddenly going to be yanked away from us this time when it wasn't at the end of other wars where things had to tighten up a tad. Why now? I think you all are just paranoids. You see black helicopters and big brother TV sets in your sleep.

YOU are the enemy. YOU are inviting the enemy inside our gates by focusing attention on the only ones who can save you.

There's nothing the government could do or say to get you back, is there? What jokes!

You can't defeat the jihadists without the government. And the jihadists know it. So what do they do? They get you to turn on your own protectors.

You are so smart it hurts.

[marden]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

It's perfectly valid to compare Bush to Hitler. Or Clinton to Hitler, or me to Hitler. Just because you compare two things with each other does not mean you're saying they're the same or even similar, just that you're examining both in the context of each other to determine what similarities (if any) or differences (if any) there are.

Sure you don't disagree that Bush and Hitler are similar in that they're both male, do you?

Two legs, two arms, have language, wear clothes, like animals, breathe, shave...hell, they may as well be twins.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by marden

Well, you guys think the constitution is suddenly going to be yanked away from us this time when it wasn't at the end of other wars where things had to tighten up a tad. Why now? I think you all are just paranoids. You see black helicopters and big brother TV sets in your sleep.

You think we're paranoid? Even though a law was just enacted that suspends the writ of habeus corpus, a cornerstone of the American legal system? Even though our freedom to believe as we see fit is being constantly eroded? Even though our most basic of rights, the right to voice our opinions and 'petition the government for a redress of grievances' of being called into question with increasing regularity and severity?

Are we really that paranoid to observe what is going on around us and try to act as a conservative force against what we see as negative change in an otherwise great country? The Constitution is not going to be 'suddenly yanked away'. It's going to be eroded bit by bit and Right by Right until we have nothing left.

YOU are the enemy. YOU are inviting the enemy inside our gates by focusing attention on the only ones who can save you.

No, the enemy are those people, both foreign and domestic, as the oath goes, that would threaten our Lives, our Country, our Constitution, and our Rights. Bin Laden is one of those people. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one of those people. Kim Jong-Il is one of those people. Saddam Hussein, however, was not one of those people, nor were Iraqis, on the whole, generally likely to join those people, although now it seems much more likely.

Those of us who are trying to preserve our Rights and our Constitution, truly believe that it's in the best interest of our Country and our Lives. Perhaps we're wrong, I don't deny that, but perhaps you're wrong, and you shouldn't discount that possibility either.

The essence of a successful Democracy or Republic is public debate and freedom to explore all aspects of all ideas. Stifling dissent, silencing criticism, and criminalizing ideas will never, never be in the best interest of America nor of any Free Person.

There's nothing the government could do or say to get you back, is there? What jokes!

Yes, there is. The government could do it's job by protecting our Rights and our Freedoms as all elected officials are sworn to do. I am concerned with the safety and future of America. I am worried that terrorism will destroy our country. I just happen to think that the destruction of America at the hands of terrorists will not look like a mushroom cloud or plan flying into a building. It will look like the wholesale destruction of our Constitution by our own government.

Without our Rights and our Freedom, there will be no more America for the terrorists to attack. So in that, I suppose, you're right: the current course will end the threat of terrorist attack on America, because it will end America.

You can't defeat the jihadists without the government. And the jihadists know it. So what do they do? They get you to turn on your own protectors.

You're right, you can't defeat terrorists without a government. And I agree that a military response is the appropriate response to terrorism and those that actively support it. What we are doing now, domestically, however, is not a military response to terrorism or its supporters. It's a political attack on the very foundations of this country and the very things that make it worth defending, and that is what I am turned against.

You are so smart it hurts.

Um ...thanks.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by goMac

It makes much more sense to compare Bush to Hitler. A man with an agenda, slowly eroding the government, until the government itself is dissolved. Because now apparently our government is "worthless".

Bush hasn't been doing this.

You have no idea that this is his desire…other than the cockamamie bullshit that Bush's political opposition has been saying.

You are all a bunch of scared little girls who will buy anything that you favorite party tells you about Bush.

Politicians are liars. Political pundits are generally liars. We all know this, it's not a secret. The thing is…it applies to the left as well. They spread FUD like hot peanut butter all over everything and people like you suck it up with a straw and beg for more. It's really sad that people have such poor sense of history and have forgotten what Hitler REALLY was about and what he did. This is not Germany, this is not the 1930's and Bush is NO HITLER.

But hey, by all means, play their political game and call Bush Hitler, a liar, and the devil. Vote in the left so we can try to impeach Bush and after 6 grueling years of Bush and 12 grueling years of republican congressional rule you can finally get back you your 60 year Democratic reign.

Then we can give the leaders of the world like al Zawahri and Ahmadinejad the respect they deserve so they will like us and stop being mean.

Then we can return to the successful economic policies of the Carter years, continue with the successful liberal education policies that did so much for our schools, return those poor 10,000,000 people we lost since '94 back to the welfare system so they can be cared for, get that teen pregnancy rate back up there where it belongs, and finally do away with the bumbling right-wing military antics that screwed up Iraq and bring back the kind of brilliant liberal military thinking that brought us the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam and Somalia.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Politicians are liars. Political pundits are generally liars. We all know this, it's not a secret. The thing is…it applies to the left as well. They spread FUD like hot peanut butter all over everything and people like you suck it up with a straw and beg for more. It's really sad that people have such poor sense of history and have forgotten what Hitler REALLY was about and what he did. This is not Germany, this is not the 1930's and Bush is NO HITLER.

Instead of getting your panties in a wad, why don't you actually refute my point? Whining about how much the liberals have hurt your feelings doesn't count, sorry.

Edit: I don't think there as any debate that Bush now is not the Hitler of the 1940's and late 1930's, but he's taking the country on the same path as Germany went on.

[Macrobat]

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus unilaterally, without Congressional approval, locked up anyone who dared speak against the policies of his administration indefinitely, without trial (many died of pneumonia, being locked in "prison ships" in New York Harbor without any safeguards against the weather). Undertook an illegal war, invading a sovereign nation, just because he didn't happen to agree with their right to be a sovereign nation, be damned what the Constitution said. He had his navy seize a Britsh noncombatant ship on the high seas (the Trent Affair) simply to arrest two citizens of the Confederacy, simply because he had personally declared them to be criminals, risking war with the British Empire.

Now he is known as "Honest" Abe, has his picture on our currency and a marble memorial in D.C. where he is revered as a great president.

He did FAR more, without the permission of Congress, than Bush has done, or plans to do.

How's that for a comparison?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by goMac

Instead of getting your panties in a wad, why don't you actually refute my point? Whining about how much the liberals have hurt your feelings doesn't count, sorry.

The first two sentences of my post are refutation enough.

Edit: What exactly was specifically supposed to refute? You said:

A man with an agenda, slowly eroding the government, until the government itself is dissolved.

This is pretty vague. Care to give specific examples?

Because now apparently our government is "worthless".

WTF is this from? Are you making that up?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus unilaterally, without Congressional approval, locked up anyone who dared speak against the policies of his administration indefinitely, without trial (many died of pneumonia, being locked in "prison ships" in New York Harbor without any safeguards against the weather). Undertook an illegal war, invading a sovereign nation, just because he didn't happen to agree with their right to be a sovereign nation, be damned what the Constitution said.

Now he is known as "Honest" Abe, has his picture on our currency and a marble memorial in D.C. where he is revered as a great president.

He did FAR more, without the permission of Congress, than Bush has done, or plans to do.

How's that for a comparison?

Now don't be bringing ACTUAL historical perspective into this.

[Macrobat]

The additional point being, despite the depravations of the Lincoln Administration and the rampant graft and theft of those administrators, the Union survived - Constitution intact.

Sky still falling, Chicken Little?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush

WTF is this from? Are you making that up?

The whole "constitution is a worthless piece of paper" debacle. Which shows Bush's basic disregard for American government and process. If he finds the Constitution worthless, he basically has no qualms about taking apart the entire government.

[Macrobat]

BTW, olePigeon, that "We're an Empire" "quote" was from an unattributed "Administration member" - not Bush. Please cease with the FUD.

In a court of law - it would be known as the agenda-driven hearsay that it truly is, and completely ignored. The way sensible people are treating this incident, as well.

We return you to your agenda.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by goMac

The whole "constitution is a worthless piece of paper" debacle. Which shows Bush's basic disregard for American government and process. If he finds the Constitution worthless, he basically has no qualms about taking apart the entire government.

Well, I admit that I know nothing of what you are referring to. If you have a link or something I would like to know more.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

The additional point being, despite the depravations of the Lincoln Administration and the rampant graft and theft of those administrators, the Union survived - Constitution intact.

Sky still falling, Chicken Little?

Yes, but Lincoln did so by simply usurping the power himself while Congress was not in session. No law was passed that said that habeus corpus no longer applied to certain people in certain cases. And people protested Lincoln's action as well. Additionally, the Supreme Court attempted to restore habeus corpus, but the military failed to comply. It wasn't until 1866 that the Supreme Court was able to officially restore habeus corpus and, at the same time, rules that it was illegal to convene a military court in areas where civil courts were capable of functioning.

Lincoln also used the period during which he had suspended habeus corpus to round up and imprison protesters and political opponents.

And if you'd actually really read what I've been saying, you'd realize that Lincoln's abuses of the Constitution also fit right in with the theory. You, by your very invocation of this example, are showing that once that sort of action is taken the first time, it becomes easier and easier to justify doing it again in the future.

And, for the record, I would have protested just as vehemently against Lincoln. Many advocates of civil rights consider him to be one of the worst presidents in history.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus unilaterally, without Congressional approval, locked up anyone who dared speak against the policies of his administration indefinitely, without trial (many died of pneumonia, being locked in "prison ships" in New York Harbor without any safeguards against the weather). Undertook an illegal war, invading a sovereign nation, just because he didn't happen to agree with their right to be a sovereign nation, be damned what the Constitution said. He had his navy seize a Britsh noncombatant ship on the high seas (the Trent Affair) simply to arrest two citizens of the Confederacy, simply because he had personally declared them to be criminals, risking war with the British Empire.

Now he is known as "Honest" Abe, has his picture on our currency and a marble memorial in D.C. where he is revered as a great president.

He did FAR more, without the permission of Congress, than Bush has done, or plans to do.

How's that for a comparison?

Except for the fact that the Constitution allows for suspension of the great writ in cases of rebellion and invasion. To whit, from Article 1 section 9:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Considering that attempting to secede and attacking Fort Sumter is pretty much rebellion the Constitution didn't have a problem with suspension of Habeas Corpus. Lincoln's problem was that he overstepping his bounds into the authority of Congress. An act, by the way, that Bush has been guilty of hundreds of times when he treats his "signing statements" as if they had any legal impact at all.

Back to the main point - there is no rebellion, and no person with a serious mind could possibly think that we're being invaded, so an attempt to suspend HC is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

BlackGriffen

[Macrobat]

There was no rebellion. It was semantics. The Confederate states had left the Union, as was their right. They not once attempted to overthrow the Federal government, so your proof fails. Lincoln successfully called it a rebellion (early spin?), in order to invoke just those rights you cited. Until the outcome of that war, states held the primary power in this country, and the Federal government was much like the United Nations of today. The Southern states had the right to withdraw their ratification of the Constitution and leave the Union.

And nonhuman, the fact that this was a DIRECT American to American comparison shows the unique ability of this government, over the government of the Roman example you cited, and any OTHER government before, since, or current, though its very flexibleness and adaptability, to counteract and avoid the pitfalls the ridiculous comparison in your initial post posits.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

There was no rebellion. It was semantics. The Confederate states had left the Union, as was their right. They not oncer attempted to overthrow the Federal government, so your proof fails.

I agree with you there.

And nonhuman, the fact that this was a DIRECT American to American comparison shows the unique ability of this government, over the government of the Roman example you cited, and any OTHER government before, since, or current, though its very flexibleness and adaptability, to counteract and avoid the pitfalls the ridiculous comparison in your initial post posits.

I don't think it shows that at all, as the exact same thing happened with Rome, in the case of Cincinnatus. Yes, the possibility exists that once the power is taken it will be given back, and that has happened in the past. That does not remove the possibility that the system will never be abused in the future.

Perhaps Lincoln was our Cincinnatus, and Bush is our Caesar. Or maybe he's just our Sulla or our Pompey.

I am not saying that I think Bush is going to single-handedly destroy our country or declare himself emperor. I am saying that Bush is taking us one step closer to the day when someone (possibly him, possibly some future president) will do that.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Undertook an illegal war, invading a sovereign nation, just because he didn't happen to agree with their right to be a sovereign nation, be damned what the Constitution said.

Probably OT, but the definition of what is or is not a sovereign nation is a tricky one. Just saying one is a sovereign nation is not enough to be one. The confederacy's sovereignty was never recognized by any country.

In general, however, I agree with you. The Constitution has withstood tougher challenges and survived. But in order for that to continue to happen, it's important for people to bring up questions like nonhuman's and to protest when they feel their liberties are being abridged.