I went down to dinner at the dining hall by myself, as usual, and happened to sit down with another staff member from 4th floor and 2 of her residents. Kate and one of her residents left, and that left me with the other guy. We started talking about the situations that have developed over the past 2 days - I don’t think I’ve had a conversation yet that hasn’t included it - and this guy starts talking about how the Constitution’s going to be poked full of holes. His rant was punctuated with anecdotes from his apparent time as a prison guard (I just kind of . He turned to me and asked, “So what’s your opinion?”
Naively - but honestly - I answered that even though the talk is unsettling, and I’m slightly worried about where this is heading, I think that we will pull through as a country. And that maybe we’ll have to take a good hard look at the Constitution, but I don’t think it will be broken. Because damnit, we’re America, and we tend to pull together and concede certain conveniences (a la WWII) if it means that we’re supporting our country.
His reply? “That’s bullsht talking. Complete and total bullsht talking.” God. Am I nuts?
I’m having a hard time imagining the American Constitution condoning the hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings. What should be changed in the constitution, according to this guy?
So in answer to your question: no, I don’t think you’re nuts at all.
He thought that our freedom of speech/rights to privacy will be totally negated, and that the procedures for search/seizure will turn the US into a police state where we’re going to wake up to people kicking down our doors because of statements we make.
I agree that some of our modern-day conveniences and the privacy we’ve come to crave will never be the same - but it’s not going to bring about anyone burning the Constitution because it’s no longer à la mode.
But it should be, dammit! I think the Constitution would go better if it had ice cream on top of it.
Flippant remarks aside, I’m afraid of exactly that.
i don’t fear for a loss of our freedoms. i believe that for a bit things will be tighter, and very strict. that happened during wwii. the constitution will not be changed due to this. the constitution is what hold us together.
Here, here. If he still open to reason (which I doubt), remind him that amending the Constitution is incredibly hard. Both houses of Congress has to pass the resolution, the president has to sign off on it, and then it has to be ratified by a majority of the states (the exact number I don’t know off hand).
Even a politically popular amendment such as banning the burning of the Amurrican flag can’t even get out of Congress. What hope would there be for something which compromises the Bill of Rights?
Now, it’s true that during national crises, the Constitution has been compromised (especially by Lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus during part of the Civil War). The Supreme Court has even approved such short-term measures (I’m thinking specifically of suppressing anti-war activists during World War I, and – I believe – some anti-draft measures during World War II). BUT, the court was firm that this was meant as short-term measures only, and that as soon as the emergency has passed, that the rule of law should return.
Not that your dining companion would understand all that, but it doesn’t make it any less true.
