Quote Originally Posted by Norton View Post
Quote Originally Posted by larvidchr
I'm sure you could come up with examples of that.
I already have. The "Patriot Act".

Passed through congress nearly unopposed. Doesn't make it right, unavoidable or constitutional, IMO.
Ya, that a-hole Lincoln didn't follow the Constitution either.

"Inter arma silent leges" was a Latin phrase much heard in the North during the Civil War. It translates roughly as, "during war, the laws are silent."
Habeas corpus is another Latin phrase, meaning "(you should) have the person," and it's part of a longer phrase, habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, meaning "(you should) produce or have the person to be subjected to (examination)."
...

Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution, restricting powers of Congress, forbids the suspension of habeas corpus except, "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it."

...

On April 27, 1861, about a week after the Fort Sumter surrender, President Lincoln ordered Winfield Scott, then head of the nation's military, to arrest anyone between Washington and Philadelphia suspected of subversive acts or speech, and his order specifically authorized suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

Habeas Corpus in the Civil War


Guess that's why Bush had the Patriot Act passed.


Quote Originally Posted by mr Fred View Post

There are many documented incidences of attacks on mosques in the US.
You only have to see comments on this board to see it's Muslims they are against, not the mosque.
The objections are against the constitution of the US and are totally unfair in every respect.
Got some linkies for your claims? We ain't against the mozzies; it's the location of this mosque. How about attacks against churches and especially synagogues in the US? Lots of those, too.