First off Tom, I’ll totally accept those congratulations…thank you very much. It’s about time that partisan politics took a back seat to this country’s security problems. Eh…that is if you think there is a security problem in this country to begin with. If not, I don’t know what rock you’ve been hiding under.

As for your lamenting the exaggerated demise of the Constitution, as I said in a prior post, the Constitution is a breathing, living instrument designed to form a cohesion around our society (not the rest of the world) that must evolve to incorporate all of our nation’s future societies and that is why amendments were instituted in the original design (Constitution), and that is why they have been used throughout our short history as a nation.:

"Article V. – Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

So our forefathers did consider that times would change in this great new nation. And with those changes would come new and unforeseen situations within this great nation. Originally you had said before editing your post that it was a sad time for our Constitution and a sad time for our country or some such hyperbole and many would disagree including it seems the predominantly democratic congress as it turns out.

It is not that the Constitution is a partisan setback but the people who need to cater to their alter ego and idealistic shortcomings and partisan loyalty that’s a setback. Your rights are not being “killed”, they are being amended to better serve the country as a whole in a modern time, it would be self-serving and therefore selfish otherwise.

How far is too far? As far as need be to protect this country without infringing on its people’s (citizen’s) rights. This is what has been said here all along. As long as there is oversight (vigilance…whatever you chose to call it)! But make no bones about it, it is needed. That is…unless you have a better solution. But of course, the politically challenged, those that would rather blather, kick and scream holy murder would rather sit back and chastise those that are trying to do something productive about the situation without them offering a better alternative solution. No solutions, just unproved theories, belly aching and lollygagging. This is where it becomes as apparent as a bare baby’s butt that there is a political agenda. And it is a travesty when a tragedy such as 9/11 has to be used solely for political gains.

These people don’t care about 9/11, they worry instead that another republican will be elected. That is their prime concern. Anything having to do with George W. Bush they want nothing to do with. They hate him and what he stands for with a passion, even if it means handing the country over to terrorists. Oh sure, why not give them constitutional rights? Why listen in on their next terrorist strike and avoid it when it means we’ve violated their Constitutional rights? Simply absurd!

“It is a federal crime for anyone including the president to have asked a civilian company or anyone to help spy on their citizens without a court order....!    without a warren!!   It is a felony crime..!”

Where does it say this? Show us where it says this. Or is this more hyperbole? Even if you should come up with a source the newly voted bill from the largely democratic congress just squashed it 69-28 as posted above!

“This administration wanted to do it in secrecy even from the law it self... why? ask your self why?”

This question is an admission of political partisanship and agenda (not to mention it smacks of conspiracy theory innuendo…time to bring out the aluminum foil cap and the Prozac).

Simply put…it’s a FISA law to be secret as if you didn’t read this somewhere in this thread! And who instituted FISA? Surely not George W. Bush! Now I’ve said this before, I’m no fan of G.W.B. and I dare say Obama (or Obamanation a word play on abomination as it’s coming to be known) has a few interesting economic points. But it chills me to the bone how he stands on terror. So there’s no real reason why I would be defending this unless I thought it was needed.

I’m an Independent and Independents have historically decided the Presidency. I thought it would be important to state this claim because I can see where people reading this thread would automatically come to the decision that I’m a right wing conservative…I’m not! I was involved in the Vietnam anti-war movement as I was in the March for Civil Rights. Not because it was the “thing” to do but because I believed in them.