USConstitution.net 2000 Survey Results
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
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 President?
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 system?
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 November 2000?
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.
Hagelin/Goldhaber (Natural Law/Independent/Reform)
Question 27, September 2000 - For whom will you vote in November 2000?
Hagelin/Goldhaber (Natural Law/Independent/Reform)
Question 26, August 2000 - When do you think a woman will become president?
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 part.
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 bit.
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 repression.
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 protection?
The flag is an important symbol and as such, should have Constitutional protection.
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 criminals.
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 regulated.
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 partnerships?
Gay couples should be able to get married like any heterosexual couple.
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.