This site has conducted an unscientific survey on various issues since July
of 1998. The results, while interesting in most cases, are to be taken with a
grain of salt - the results can easily be skewed by an individual or group of
individuals; the sample is, by nature, not representative (because it consists
only of Web users who visit my site and bother to view the survey page and
submit an opinion).
This page includes results from 2000. For results from other years, please
go to the Main Results Page.
Question 30, December 2000 - Regardless of who wins the
electoral vote for the 2000 election, will you feel you can support the new
Yes - once decided, the President is our
President, and deserves our support
I have no choice but to support the winner - there's
nothing I can do about it now
I cannot support the President - the whole process was
tawdry and tainted
Question 29, November 2000 - Based on the upcoming, or
recently held (depending upon when you read this) elections, do you think that
the people's interests would be better served with direct election of the
President and Vice President, or should we stick with the Electoral College
Yes, we should have direct elections
No, the layer the College provides is still important
No, the system works, leave it alone
Question 28, October 2000 - For whom will you vote in
The second half of the two-month survey found a huge rush of votes for
Browne, the Libertarian candidate. The addition of Phillips, the Constitution
Party candidate, had little effect on the outcome.
Question 26, August 2000 - When do you think a woman will
Maybe 2004 or 2008
Probably more like 2012 through 2020
Closer to the 2024 through 2036 range
The United States may never be ready to elect a woman President
Question 25, July 2000 - How did you come to this site?
Bookmark or Favorite
Other search engine
Rush Limbaugh Site
Steve Mount's Site
USConstitution.net Portal Page
Question 24, June 2000: Two crimes, arson and rape, had
provisions in federal law that made them prosecutable in federal court. Some
of the reasoning for the arson law was that homes and buildings are an integral
part of interstate commerce; for rape, that women's fears about rape prevented
them from engaging in interstate commerce. The Supreme Court recently struck
down the ability to sue for arson or rape in federal court, saying that these
are inherently local crimes that should be dealt with locally. Victims
advocates believe the Court has hurt the chances of the injured to realize
justice. What do you think?
Rape and arson are horrible crimes, and there should be provisions in
federal law to deal with them.
Perhaps rape and arson should have some federal law, but relying on the
Commerce Clause to legitimize the law was poor planning on Congress's
The Commerce Clause is near the breaking point considering how far it
gets stretched by Congress. Bravo to the Court for pulling back on the reins a
Question 23, May 2000 - The U.S. Supreme Court recently
ruled that a Pennsylvania town had the ability to require nude dancers wear
small articles of clothing to cover their private parts. The dancers objected
to the law saying that it infringed upon their freedom of expression, but the
Court disagreed, noting that while dancing, even nude dancing, is a protected
form of expression, the town has the right and even the responsibility to
ensure public safety. By restricting nude dancing, the town hoped to combat
the crime that that sort of activity attracted. Was the Court right?
The Court was correct in its ruling - a town should be able to place
safety over some freedoms.
The Court was right, but did not go far enough - nude dancing of any
kind is not a legitimate form of protected expression.
The Court was wrong and went too far - by allowing this form of
expression to be repressed, the door is opening to other forms of
Question 22, April 2000 - The U.S. House passed a bill that
would amend the Constitution to enable the Congress to enact legislation to
protect the flag. The Senate vote on the bill was an overwhelming majority,
but not the super-majority required by the Constitution. Many Senators, and
well-regarded American hero Colin Powell, noted that the flag, while a precious
symbol, is above the need for such protection. Others, such as Senator Orrin
Hatch, lamented that the desecration of the flag is an insult to America's
veterans and to the nation. Does the U.S. Flag need Constitutional
The flag is an important symbol and as such, should have Constitutional
The flag is an important symbol and as such, it can withstand attacks
by those who choose to burn or deface it.
The flag is not an important symbol, and it deserves no protection.
Question 21, March 2000 - Since the 1966 Miranda ruling,
police have been required to Mirandize suspects, advising them of their
constitutional rights to remain silent and to have an attorney. The Supreme
Court will be soon reviewing the requirements of such a reading of rights, and
recent news reports indicate that many police departments are talking to
suspects after a request for a lawyer, using otherwise inadmissible testimony
against defendants in certain specific legal circumstances. What are your
feelings on Miranda rights?
The rights of the accused are some of the most precious we have - the
Court should uphold Miranda and police should stop manipulating loopholes.
Miranda is an important decision, and the Court should uphold it, but
legal loopholes are inevitable and should be exploited to catch and prosecute
Though the rights Miranda warnings talk about are very important,
ignorance of your constitutional rights is no excuse; Miranda should be
overturned, and the police should be able to question suspects even when they
request a lawyer.
The rights of the accused have overshadowed the rights of victims - we
need to do away with Miranda and maybe even some of these rights, and let the
police do their job.
Question 20, February 2000 - The United States Supreme
Court has ruled that a state law capping campaign contributions to just over
$1000 per person per candidate per election was a constitutional check on
corruption, or the appearance thereof. But many argue that campaign
contributions are a form of free speech. Do you think you should be able to
contribute an unlimited amount to a candidate?
Money talks - it is a form of free speech and should not be
Money talks - and that's the problem: big contributors get unfair
access to candidates and should be capped.
Individuals should be able to give as much as they want, but unions,
PAC's, and companies should be capped.
Individuals should be able to give as much as they want, but union,
PAC, and corporate contributions should be illegal.
Election campaigns should be publicly funded to ensure a fair and
equal playing field - no contributions from any source.
Question 19, January 2000 - The Vermont Supreme Court
recently ruled that gay couples must be afforded the same rights and
protections as married couples. What is your opinion on legal recognition of
Gay couples should be able to get married like any heterosexual
Gay couples should be able to have a legal union, though it should not
be called "marriage".
We should keep the status quo - let gay couples live together if they
want, but there is no point in legal recognition.
Homosexuality is wrong and has no place in our society.