After Americans abandon Constitution, what's next?

After Americans abandon Constitution, what's next?
EDITOR:
A recent AP-Ipsos poll indicates that only a slim majority (56 percent) of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls "might" involve conversations with "suspected" terrorists. More troubling, however, is that approximately 42 percent of those surveyed said they do not believe that court approval is necessary at all.
That's right, roughly 42 percent of Americans are now willing to forego their constitutional protections against warrantless searches and seizures in return for a temporary sense of security.
Now, couple this with the silence following Our Great Leader's recent outbursts when Republican leaders told him that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the Patriot Act could further alienate conservatives of all colors: "I don't give a g------," he shouted back, "I'm the president and the commander-in-chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," said one aide in the meeting, "there is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a g--------- piece of paper!"
So, 42 percent of our fellow Americans now see nothing wrong with warrantless searches and seizures and even fewer people, including the American press, are willing to bother bringing Dubya to task for his contemptuous remarks about the Constitution.
Make no mistake about it, fellow Americans: when fear trumps reason and the rule of law (and it has), fascism is not far behind. Given the demonstrated behavior of the American press to ignore Bush's absurd and contemptuous outbursts, dare I suggest it's actually right on our heels?
In the immortal words of Ben Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
We're screwed.
AL BLAZO
Youngstown
Thank Akron lawyers for Youngstown's crime rate
EDITOR:
The violent crime and homicides continue at an alarming rate in Youngstown, yet it seems some people are more concerned about the rights and comfort of the inmates in the Mahoning County jail.
There is no big secret to reducing the violence that is plaguing the city. Just lock up the criminals that are breaking the law, dealing drugs, carrying and using guns, and terrorizing the law-abiding citizens of our community. We know that locking these people up does in fact reduce crime, as pointed out again in the Jan. 3 Vindicator article about Youngstown's 2005 homicide rate. The article points out that there were 34 homicides in 2005, including the shooting death of a 14-year-old boy. However, in 2003 when the Gun Reduction Interdiction Project (GRIP) was being utilized and violent offenders were being removed from the streets and locked up, the homicide rate was 19 for the year.
Then the lawyers from Akron, who obviously have no personal interest in the safety of Youngstown and the citizens of the Mahoning Valley, decided that the conditions at the county jail were just too crowded and uncomfortable for the inmates held there. A successful class action suit and subsequent ruling by a federal judge then lead to the release of inmates and a cap of 296 on the jail population. The situation has just become worse during the past year, as inmates continue to be released early, and offenders convicted of crimes cannot be sentenced to jail.
The violence and killings in Youngstown will only continue, and quite possibly become worse, until the justice system is able to remove repeat and violent offenders from the streets. I believe that most people would prefer an overcrowded jail and uncomfortable inmates to the violence and killings that continue to plague the law-abiding citizens of our community.
CHUCK HILLMAN
Boardman
Maintain the balance
EDITOR:
A balance in the separation of powers in the U.S. government is basic to the U.S. Constitution's core principles. In part, Judge Samuel Alito has proven that he is not fit to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court justice because of his written statement that supports the presidential signing of law addendums that circumvent the legislature and give the president unchecked legislative powers.
CHRISTIAN MROSKO
Youngstown