There are certain powers which the government holds that may be formally limited but can nonetheless be exercised limitlessly and even potentially abused in a wide variety of ways. An example of this is the power to tax. This is a very fundamental matter that was first heard by the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland back in 1819. In that case, a state tax was issued against a federally chartered bank. Chief Justice Marshall there correctly concluded that if a state can tax a federal entity, then the federal government would not be able to enact laws that can be applied at the state level. Our tiered federal system with elaborate checks would be strained. Since the power to tax is so potent, and is in fact a question of personal sovereignty, it goes without saying, for example, that a President cannot arbitrarily enact a tax without the Congress's consent. Why? Because placing the power to tax in the hands of the President would literally render him a dictator or a monarch. The same goes for other potential abuses, such as the power to detain prisoners indefinitely. If the President is allowed to unilaterally detain people merely because he declares it so and without recourse to another branch of government like the Congress or the Courts, then it can be fairly stated that constitutionally the President is acting outside of his powers. Indeed, he is acting similar to a monarch. If a President has the right to detain whomever he wants at whim, what does that mean in the long term for the preservation of our fundamental freedoms? Bush's wide use of Executive Power and selection of judges to the bench who uphold those wide grants of power are rather concerning. I believe that the legislative function should act as an important check to any potential abuses of power coming out of the White House. The greatness of our system in the final analysis is that it is greater and above any one man. To preserve freedom, the President cannot be the end-all and be-all.

I don't think this is the most important reason not to vote for Bush. But the infringement of liberties is definitely an excuse for the administration to look into our privacies.

I have yet to see any concentration camps. Michael Moore continues to blast the administration unhindered. I have yet to see liberal journals dissapear off the shelves in the bookstore. I have yet to see anyone arrested on terrorism charges without good reason (who in their right mind would want to be in a combat zone in Afganistan?). I have yet to see soldiers patrolling the streets. And tell me how where supposed to run our intelligence agencies without wiretapping suspects? Why are you so worried? If you are a law abiding citizen why should you think they would wiretap YOUR phone?

You folks better watch out. Ashcroft may be watching what you type. Or read. Or think. 9/11 does not give the pResident a blank check to do as he sees fit.

Many of the Bush Adminstration's laws are unconstitutional, from the Pentagon and the FBI illegally spying on people to supporting arrests of anti-war protesters. Also, George W. Bush is against the Separation of Church and State. Just look at the Texas Republican Party. They claim America is a Christian Nation? America is governed by the Constitution, not the Bible.

Again, the word 'alleged'. They DO infringe upon American civil liberties, this is not just 'hearsay' or 'opinion' or 'supposition'. September 11th was a horrific crime and may nothing like it ever be repeated in ANY country or city in the world, but it has been cynically exploited by those in charge to implement changes that they have wanted to implement for years. It was an incredible opportunity to bring America together, and to bring the world together, but it was squandered immediately because of the sheer stupidity of those in office. American liberties have never been in more danger, and as Tommy Franks pointed out, one more attack like that and we can kiss the Bill of Rights and the Constitution goodbye, probably forever. Would that be worth it to you? If so, then spend a few years in Cuba, where there is very little crime and a whole lot of security. You'll be safe at least.

i would probably be more alarmed about this one if an insane arab terrorist didn't hijack planes and crash them into our buildings and murder close to 3000 of our citizens. if someone meets the profile of a terrorist, i have absolutely no problem with someone determining whether or not he is a threat to innocent people.

The key word here is allegedly. I'm sure many Americans don't mind being safer since that is the reason for many initiated security policies. Don't you remember an incident an incident two years ago on Sept. 11th? That was the impetus of these policies.

He has led the american people to believe that they are in constant danger and used this to pursue his own agendas. That includes arresting people without trial, searching homes and possessions without a warrant, limiting the freedom of expression if it's considered unpatriotic (students have been suspended and even expelled for wearing anti-bush T-shirts and even watching anti-war films), people have even been detained for owning books by Karl Marx (not even communists who have a right to thier opinions anyway, just READING a book). Don't even get me started on Gauntanomo bay where the jailers regard the captives (often held without trial or access to lawyers) as no more then sources of information who are regularly in a state of sensory deprivation and wheeled around on carts. Fear and subjugation is not a healthy climate in a democracy.

We had McCarthy once in the U.S., and some of the chilliness of that era is returning. A nation dominated by fear, and dominated by entities that profit by keeping the level of fear high, cannot ever behave justly. I think it will get worse before it gets better--but the least we can do is vote this simple-minded fool out of office.

Yeah, this one frightens me. I'm particularly irked by the my government's continued retention of prisoners in Guantanemo Bay without access to lawyers, without transparency to the media, and in the face of the criticism of our staunchest allies. Even Colin Powell has spoken out strongly against this, saying that it is hurting our ability to build consensus with our allies on other issues, as they are universally against our actions towards these political prisoners. And don't even get me started on the so called Patriot Act.