We are the 99%

February 10, 2006

The ABA Poll

The American Bar Association recently conducted a poll, well I'll let them describe it:
According to a poll commissioned by the American Bar Association and released today, 52 percent of respondents said that in the fight against terrorism, the President of the United States alone cannot suspend constitutional freedoms, with an additional 25 percent saying he must obtain authorization by a court of law or Congress. Thus 77 percent of Americans express deep reservations about the president’s secret surveillance program.
Wow 77%, that's way more than a majority, huh?
The telephone poll conducted by Harris Interactive® over the past weekend found that only 18 percent of respondents believe the president can suspend constitutional freedoms "anytime the President thinks it is necessary to protect the country."
18%. That's less than 1 in 5.

I would have bolded out the important parts - but it's all important.

The data can be found here.

IMPEACH

10 comments:

Braden said...

I've noticed that you guys are always attempting to back up your asinine claims by refering to a "poll." Funnny. It's also funny that you guys are not speaking about how Harry Reid often met with Abramoff. Gee, the Democrats were barking and shouting, but when they themselves got caught, it's absolute silence. What's wrong guys? Cat got your tongue? I read this in the paper this morning (via the associated press): http://www.observer-reporter.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=11239&SectionID=6&SubSectionID=152&S=1

I've noticed a peculiar pattern as of late. When Democrats accuse the Republicans of doing something, it's generally they themselves who are guilty of it.

Speaking of the wiretap issues: You do understand that the President has the consitutional power to do what he's doing? You do realize that laws cannot superceed the constitution? Only amendments to the constitution can. Being you both express deep concerns for this country's national security, and being that you both are well versed in the way the constitution works, I'm sure you both knew that already, right?

Diane Feinstein is nervous because Cindy Sheehan may run for her seat in California. I say, run Cindy! Run! I'd laugh. Diane says it's not in Cindy's best interest. Uh huh, sure. Uhmm, Ms. Feinstein, it's not in Cindy's best interest that she doesn't run, because she'll take the votes away from your political party, and you know it. Nevertheless, I'd love to see Cindy Sheehan run.

As far as I am concerned, you and people like you are making your political party fizzle out like a candle in the wind. Heck, even Joe Lieberman thinks this is all ridiculous. He's about one of the only honest Democrats left, and he's ashamed at all this political hoo-haw the Democrats have turned the wire tapping issue into. Oh wait! He's not a true Democrat because he agrees with our war on terror, my bad! Oopsie! Bwahahahaha!

Anonymous said...

Still hittin' on that pipe dream, eh Maria anbd Gayvoe?

mills357 said...

It seems to me that polls are an invalid method to determine what should occur in America.
Yet,a witty writer has called for the impeachment of The President--using the outcome of a poll.
Bitterness only kills the bitter hearted:the rest of us just run away and hide from them.
President Clinton was impeached and that embittered many:that is just too bad.
If the fool had merely told the truth and lived the truth:he would have avoided the whole thing.
He did not do that,instead he chose to call a bluff:it was not a bluff.
I'll just bet that President Clinton stinks at poker and chess they same way that he stank up The Oval Office.
Too clever by half should be his motto.

porchwise said...

...and when Republicans accuse the Democrats of doing something, it's generally they themselves who are guilty of it...and where in the constitution does it say the President has unlimited powers?

PghFuture said...

the sophomoric humor,name calling, and general childish tone of this blog makes it difficult for serious observers to take you serious....BTW..Lynn Swann just said on ABC with Georgie S that if the SCOTUS were to void Row v Wade,he would pass legislation in PA to end abortion,except under certain circumstances....now that's something to talk about

Maria said...

Dear Pghfuture,

And, yet you still come here...as does the Daou Report which linked to one of Dayvoe's stories yesterday...

When you get some comments on your blog, hopefully you won't get trolls that love to accuse you of everything but treason and then you can decide how to respond to them.

Sorry that I missed the Swann thing...I hope you write about it as I have visited your blog a few times before your comment here.

Maria said...

...didn't you just "name call" us? LOL

dayvoe said...

Geez, did you guys misread my post!

And I have to say I find that rather disappointing.

The whole point was to say that if the polling data is accurate (and there's no reason to think otherwise) 3 out of 4 Americans have huge difficulties with the president's domestic spying program.

And once a person's logic circuits kick in, this means that, at the very least, the people who don't have such difficulties - are in the minority.

And even if one's logic circuits are so flawed that they don't allow this point to be grasped, the next section should have been a clue. The polling data shows that less than only 1 out of 5 Americans believe that the president can suspend our constitutional freedoms whenever he decides it's necessary (like with his domestic spying program). So, if you do hold such a belief, then you're in the minority with that.

So where do you stand? With a majority of Americans who have "deep reservations" about Bush's domestic spying, or with the minority who believe that it's OK for a president to be able to suspend our civil liberties on his decision alone?

It's quite simple, really.

I really am surprised you all misread it. Oh well.

Adkenar said...

I think there are a few important things to note here.

1) Nowhere in Article II does it say anything about the President having "extra power" during wartime; Article I allows for the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus during rebellion or invasion (of the US), but there is certainly no rebellion, and I hardly think this war could be considered as us being invaded. Furthermore, Amendment 4 (remember that emendments override the things before them) states that all persons shall be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures, unless they have warrants.
2) There is a secret court (to maintain the secrecy of the program) whereby warrants can be obtained; this is the job of that court, so it's not like they're bogged down with other work and therefore "too slow". I haven't verified this yet, but I've heard that the warrants can even be obtained retroactively. Given those facts, there is absolutely no reason a warrant could not--should not--be obtained for a legitimate search.

So, given those points, I think the opinion poll holds more weight than some people here suggest; the constitution and the laws seem to me to be more against this activity than for it, and it seems to me that the leggality of this ought to be investigated much more thoroughly than it has been, and it appears that a good portion of other citizes (remember, in a representative government, the government is supposed to represent those same citizens) think so as well.

PghFuture said...

Maria,
you're correct, I am drawn to your site just as I am drawn to the New York Times and Arriana Huffington's blog and Real Clear Politics.Looking for points of view. And no, I don't think I was name calling more so critiquing.