‘Preposterous to imply our Constitution has been shredded’

July 21, 2008 10:16 am

— Regarding the Letter to the Editor "I truly fear that history is about to repeat itself" of July 15. I can't allow myself to let his letter pass without comment.
First, to imply our president has established himself as “a dictator” is quite comical. Webster's Dictionary defines a dictator as "an absolute ruler, tyrant, cruel or unjust." This partly implies that whatever he says goes. This is far from the truth. President Bush tried, with failure, to initiate Social Security Reform after his re-election. congressional opposition mobilized and baseless fears were exploited. Doesn't sound like the work of a "dictator" to me. Congress has prevented President Bush from filling 28 vacant judicial seats as of June 28, 2008. Sound like the work of a "dictator"? Recently, President Bush has, with Executive Order, lifted the ban on drilling for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf. Congressional leaders have thus far ignored this lead and continue to impose their own ban. This doesn't sound like "absolute rule" to me.
Secondly, it is preposterous to imply our Constitution has been shredded. It is alive and well every day. Habeas Corpus, a judicial device in which jailed people may require their jailer to justify their imprisonment to a court, is used by men jailed in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This right, affirmed by the Supreme Court, was not given to our own prisoners in previous wars. We still own firearms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Congress yields its power of the purse per Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution. This can be validated at www.house.gov. We are even having an election this year as guaranteed by Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.
Thirdly, House Resolution 6304 was recently signed by President Bush. While not perfect, it garnered wide congressional support. This amendment, to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, is a necessary tool in our fight against terrorism. I gather this has caused you much consternation and anguish. Everyone should be aware that it provides various protections such as requiring intelligence to be gathered against individuals outside the United States and surveillance must be conducted in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. There are times when speed may prevent prior warrants but every administration since FISA’s inception has enjoyed this privilege. Thus, I would assume your anger goes back before President Bush. Readers can gather further information at http://thomas.loc.gov.
I would like to provide other counterpoints but briefness prevents it. Sir, I respect your right to voice your opinion. Our “shredded Constitution”, through the First Amendment, protects this speech. You can sleep well knowing America's veterans will always serve to protect this right. However, none of us (me included) should let our emotions, and/or disagreements with others, inflame us.
We can agree to disagree but disrespectful and contemptuous language should never be used toward anyone. We are polarized enough as a country. I would ask, in closing, that God continue to bless you, President Bush and the United States of America.
Have a wonderful day.

Bobby Freuler
Tarboro