Bush considered restrictions to the first ammendment!

Fear not, the AP now has an article on it.Outside the scope of your OP, but it's worth mentioning that the Bush administration also considered the 4th amendment to be null and void while fighting terrorism.What's the bet that had McCain won we would not be hearing about these internal memos and opinions from the OLC, as well as other related info?

You know, perhaps her district just doesn't feel the same way about her as you do. Perhaps they don't think she's a Bush enabler, or maybe they just don't care. And yes, she was elected to the 8th district with 71.7% of the vote in 2008, but in 2006, she commanded 80.4, and 2004 she won with 83%. Her average is 81.53% of the vote. So her last election saw an erosion of 12% of her vote share average. She's also been there since 1992, and we all know the power of the incumbency (how exactly did Lieberman win as an independent?).

I presume you aren't old enough then to recall Mao Zedong, Stalin, or Kim Il-Sung.What, exactly, makes you think Obama is a cult of personality? His high popularity rating? People obsessing over him?Of course, from what I've been reading, Reagan is a cult of personality if Obama is one.

so changing the constitution to allow cruel and unusual punishment, to allow the suppression of dissent, to force a single religion, or to eliminate any number of vital rights is all right? After all, you said changing the constitution in any way, changing any piece of it, should not be considered wrong.Quite frankly, some changes are not good whatsoever, and those changes are those that seek to reduce or eliminate our inalienable rights.

Right. And how did you use treason? As if it was something undesirable to do. Something wrong to do.People are thrown in jail for doing something others consider wrong. In your example, that wrong action was changing the constitution. Changing the constitution was considered treasonous.Putting words in your mouth? I don't think so.