Is there ever a time when personal liberties should be suspended?

Well that and, they don't actually physically prevent entry.

Non-union personnel regularly break the picket line and freely walk in.

 

My experience with this is old- but it was quite common for a variety of attacks to occur to those who break picket lines. Cars keyed, threats-
Once had a union business agent and his associate explain to me that accidents happen when non-union workers were on a job, and I could wind up with both my legs broken.
I explained that is such accidents, the gun I carry might also accidentally discharge and hit someone.....

Unfortunately my experience dealing with unions over a 10 year stretch always seemed to bring our very unsavory characters and conduct.

 

Not in the least.
They may find terrorists more easily, but how many people's liberties are compromised to find those few?
If there's just cause to spy, get a warrant.

 

So you back track from gov't shutting down schools to teachers unions?

I won't pay attention to any more of your posts on the topic. You're just making up stuff. Other than Chicago just recently, AFAIK, there's been no other unions that shut down the schools. And that was a D union against a D mayor. So much for you D lies as well.

 

How do you now if there is a just cause if you don't investigate?
and you need proof if you want to prosecute the accusation.

 

Is there ever a time when personal liberties should be suspended?

It might be possible to conjure up something. Hollywood had conjured up a few. But there has never been an appropriate reason to suspend rights in the history of the nation despite a few occurrences some of which are happening at the present time.

 

Never said no investigation. I said spying on Americans. Get a warrant if there's just cause.

 

No. History is replete with leadership and governments that once rights have been taken have never returned those rights to the citizens. Exception, when habeas corpus was suspended during the civil war, at which time, government was in chaos, and the liberties of all were trespassed on. In constitutional theory, those rights have permanently been applied, with the passage of the 14th and 15th amendments. It is unclear that any future government could suspend a given right in this country again. The act of suspending said rights would be in direct violation of those agreements, and would require super majorities of the public, and states to rewrite those provisions.

As for "climate emergencies, wtf? War, perhaps, but even in war, and meaning a direct attack on the nation from a foreign adversary, even in war, the US doesn't (usually) suspend the rights of the people. (Democratic presidential attacks on Japanese citizens noted)

And why is it always democrats who wish to find a way to take away the rights of the people. If we don't learn from their behavior, and they aren't punished for their awful behavior, it does look like democrats won't ever stop engaging in those awful behaviors.

 

Reasonable answer from a point of view.
I don't agree and did add the caveat that you know the government will restore your rights. However I did also include climate emergency in my list of national disasters. If I described that as asking you to halve your use of energy in order to make energy cheaper for the less fortunate nad last longer for you, would you?

 

An interesting perspective, but one that seems to belie the underlying patriotism inherent in the conversation. Yes, folks during war sacrificed, and did so for the benefit of ridding the world of folks who you now seem to be championing when you reference the tyranny of democrats who would require you to be a lab rat and test mRNA serums.... If we are going to be consistent, at least recognize what is inconsistent in your own posting. We have the ability to chose for ourselves. We can should we wish, bet the covid shots. We take an inherent personal risk in doing so. But let's at least be honest enough to recognize that rationing isn't the outcome we want or expect, ever. And to be clear, folks used to believe that engaging in tyranny wasn't in the best interest of the nation, and yet, here you are.

 

Once again, how do you know if there is just cause if you don't carry out surveillance?
You can't know unless you follow or track them.
In addition you may be a suspect and after someone tracks you, they realise you are not a suspect. It can work in your favour too.

 

I guess you've never heard of due process. Or good order and discipline. I'm not shocked.

 

Here you go again, always referring to one side of the political spectrum or the other, as some weapon of choice. and using these "always" inferences which make such statements weak and unsupportable.
Democrats don't ALWAYS do XXX and Republicans don't ALWAYS do YYY. You make such conversations should like some pre-loaded video game.

 

I suppose the best answer here is that artificial reasons like "climate emergency" or other imaginary BS shouldn't be used as a benchmark to remove liberty from the people. As the Biden administration is actively engaging in artificial market manipulation to ensure artificial scarcity of say gasoline resulting in the astronomical inflation that we're also now seeing, do you suppose that the vague, non issue of imaginary climate emergency is perhaps not substantive enough given that no actual harm can be demonstrated because it's entirely imaginary or future proofed meaning that we'll only see it in a future that was also imagined by those who brought the concern?

I'd point out that making energy cheaper is entirely a function of how much tax load governments put on the production, distribution, and sale of it. Which is why any artificial scarcity that is induced by government is inherently an attack on the least fortunate of us. Are you willing to agree with that premise? Higher gas prices don't really effect me, and the inflation, though annoying, isn't curtailing my economic position or behavior. But for a lot of folks on fixed incomes, low income folks, etc, these effects are devastating to them. Why must democrats always attack the most vulnerable of us?

Here's a paradigm consideration. If, as you ask, we are regulated to lower demand, what do you expect would happen to those "less fortunate"? It isn't like those artificial restrains won't effect them as well, so isn't your model sufficiently internally conflicted to be non sensical? Second, I'd point out that about no one I know believes that energy is or production of it is supply bound. No one. Unless you're the marketing folks trying to make your energy more expensive, the only levers I'm aware of are those government artificially binds to the process. I know, they don't teach that in socialist economics...

 

The Patriot Act has been in place since 2001/02 with a sunset clause. Bush 2, obama, trump, and now likely biden, will all extend it.
Once the gov't gets power, they never ever recede that power.

I already keep my energy bills as low as I can get them. So no, I would not cut them in 1/2 from where I'm at now.

 

The onus is on government to produce that evidence. Illegally spying on folks without warrants isn't a method that is allowed in the US.

 

One thing Ds and Rs always do, always, is point fingers. Get the partisan hacks to point fingers with them. Calling the other side the enemy. They always divide the sheeple and run their own elite agenda right under their partisan noses.
But they're all to busy pointing fingers and calling names, they don't care about how much power and money the corrupt parties give themselves. Hell, the sheep even donate to the elites.

 

I can't think of a single republican politician (except as already noted, Lincoln) who engaged in the behavior of taking away guaranteed rights from anyone. Can you? And I don't know of the republican who accepts the fantasy that is climate emergency or gives it weight sufficient to ration or otherwise allow government to interfere with the energy markets to the extent you're describing.

I do know, and can provide legions of democrats who believe, as it seems you do, in governments need to interfere with energy markets because of your combined belief in the religion of climate catastrophe. Read my postings on it. And should there be a republican that chooses to engage in said imaginary religious zealotry, I wouldn't have a problem calling them out.

Be honest here. the rights of the people and the privilege of government are inherently at the behest and grant of the people. It isn't the other way around. Government doesn't exist to limit rights, but to protect them. Something I can provide endless examples of how democrats have tried to infringe on. Government isn't the end. It's the consent of the governed. And folks in the democratic party always seem to forget that part in their eagerness to "fix" stuff even if, as you brought up, they are only imagined...

 

I know it is an unusual situation for the USA to be short of energy production but I can honestly tell you that this is global phenomenon. In the UK, some household bills have more than doubled and national caps have been moved sharply upwards so governments don't have to pay for excess charges.
Reasons are various...more usage as more people work from home, international price fiddling for a variety of political reasons, and squaring up after years of artificial price suppression.
I am not sure where the USA gets its gas...so I can't comment on your particular reasons.
Of course taxation platys a big part but after the covid support payouts, most countries are desperate to fill their treasuries and pay back loans, particularly as interest rates are going up. National trade and economies are not yet back to normal so "normal explanations and justifications" don't apply.
I don't know why it is always the fault of the political position that you don't like. Reasons for things are not some calculated plot in some war game or part of some subterfuge set to hurt you. You don't live in some video game where the wicked king is out to steal your farm. You live in an interconnected country and perhaps you could look further than your own borders for an answer to an international problem.

 

FYI............

The Suspension Clause protects liberty by protecting the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It provides that the federal government may not suspend this privilege except in extraordinary circumstances: when a rebellion or invasion occurs and the public safety requires it.

Appreciating the significance of this restraint first requires understanding the writ of habeas corpus. This writ, which Americans imported into the Constitution from English common law, is a means by which a prisoner can test the legality of her detention. A person who believes she is being imprisoned illegally can file a petition asking a judge to issue a writ of habeas corpus. When a prisoner files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, her custodian must explain why the restraint is lawful. If the explanation does not satisfy the court, it will order the custodian to release her. The writ is thus a crucial means by which a prisoner can obtain freedom.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/763

 

If we don't agree that climate change is a global emergency, we can't have this discussion.
The people have the power to suspend their rights if they feel the outcome of doing so is better than if they did not. Examples include the ones given during wartime when millions of people all over the world gave up some rights to support their country.
I asked if this is something you would do.
Thank you for your answer.

 

Two things. First, England et al created dependence. Your energy is delivered to you from a lot of places that really don't like you much. And your unwillingness as a country to create sustainable energy for your own people is the relationship of choice your government pushed you into. The rates that you pay are entirely determined by the nationalized industry that supplies it to you, and of course they can charge whatever they wish, or ration then as they see fit. That is a political problem for folks there. And yet, I haven't seen anyone all that interested in actively working to fix that problem.

Second, there are places i the US that suffer at the hands of their state governments as well. Places like NY or CA, or IL all have petty little tyrants that seem to enjoy putting the most vulnerable into compromising economic predicaments because they always "promise" to fix it for them. That would be our democratic party folks in this country. Go to a republican run state, ie, TX, and you'd see that energy pricing is significantly lower. Why? Because the state isn't trying to prop up all of the BS governmental overhead of other states that create its' own economic synergy to keep running. You could say that these states look pretty similar to the way the UK governs. Hand outs, dependency to handouts, and a ridiculous elite who seem to delight in that relationship.

In the US, we don't have evil kings, but what we do have are lots of entitled and over aggrieved folks who all seem to be democrats who wish that they could simply take from those of us who have worked and succeed in our nation. I understand this is an apple to an orange. But if you don't see the value of the US coming to your aid in EVERY conflict over how your nation receives its energy, I don't think that you've paid close enough attention.

 

Socialists have always gotten where they were by mesmerizing the people into believing that it is for their own good to give government total control of everything and everyone. It will bring on absolute Utopia. Many on the left say, "But, but, but, we can make it Democratic Socialism where we can give government total control over everything and everyone and the people in charge won't abuse that total power and we will have free and fair elections". Yeah, right, Venezuela has elections and so does Russia. How naive. When a handful in government have total power over everything and everyone there is no more democracy. Funny how the left believed that Trump could so easily have done this and yet the left seem to think that could never happen if they were the ones in total power.

 

Those are the words of a zealot. The climate changing is an ongoing natural condition. Our ability to ether interfere with it, or otherwise deal with it is limited to our combined ability to adapt to it changing.

Are you aware of what the "great flood" was? Meaning the first eons of warming from the end of the last great ice age? Were you aware of the devastation that it caused to those who lived during those times as the seas rose hundreds of feet in a short period of time and swallowed the land that had been exposed because the water was locked up as ice? Perhaps it would be instructive for you to do some research.

To be honest, the climate does one consistent thing. It changes. Our task is to adapt to those changes. That isn't an "emergency". It's a fact of life. Unfortunately, the religion of climate change zealots have poisoned that conversation that could be had and made it about consolidation of power for those who "believe"....

As for the people, of course they can engage in any sophistry they want. We've seen the outcomes and the horror of those experiments. Be they Russian, or Chinese, or Spanish, French... The experiment that seems to work in the long run though is the US model. Why? Because we don't "choose" rights. We enjoy them. And we stand up for them. And those of others, like you brits historically. If you feel you want to give up your rights, I'd ask for who's benefit do you give them for? Be honest about your answer then.