USConstitution.net 2001 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 2001. For results from other years, please go to the Main Results Page.
Question 42, December 2001 - In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, how concerned are you about civil liberties being violated by the government in its response?
The government is taking just the right steps to protect Americans - some restrictions on civil rights in this time of war is a small price to pay.
I think the government needs to walk a fine line, and though the steps taken so far have been alright, they could easily veer too far off course.
I am very concerned about the steps the government has taken, and feel that, unchallenged, the government will far overreach its authority.
Question 41, November 2001 - Should the United States show respect for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan by suspending operations in Afghanistan during the month?
Though suspension may mean a set-back to the campaign, the support of Arab allies is too important to risk - we should suspend all military activity.
We should suspend the bombing, but since ground operations can be pin-point in accuracy, they should not be suspended.
War is war - fighting has happened during Jewish and Christian holy days, and Ramadan should not be treated any differently.
Question 40, October 2001 - One criticism of U.S. intelligence agencies following the September 11 terrorist attacks is that the U.S. was too diligent in trying to keep its hands clean when working with foreign nationals, not, for example, putting known killers or terrorists on the payroll. What should we do in the future?
We must continue these policies, striving to uphold our own principles.
It should be our policy to try to avoid these people, but at the same time allow it when no other option exists.
While the policy seemed like a good idea, it is obvious that we now have to be able to deal with terrorists in any way possible - we must put these sorts on the payroll.
Question 39, September 2001 - One often-repeated criticism of the Constitution is the life-time appointment of judges. Many states appoint judges for fixed terms, have retirement ages, or even hold regular elections for judgeships. Would you support any of these for federal judges?
Life-time appointment helps prevent corruption. Leave it as it is.
Appointments should be for a set number of years, like 8 or 24 years, with reconfirmation required to extend the term.
Retirement ages should be implemented to prevent old judges, out of tune with society, from continuing on the bench beyond their usefulness.
All public officials, including judges, should be elected.
Question 38, August 2001 - A commission whose members included former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford recently made several recommendations to improve the election process in the United States. One key recommendation was to make Election Day a national holiday. The suggested, too, that moving Veteran's Day to Election Day every two or four years would honor veterans
and not place a financial burden on business. What do you think?
There is no reason to make Election Day a national holiday
Veterans Day should be separate to honor our veterans, and Election Day should be a national holiday
Combining Veterans Day and Election day for Presidential elections is a great idea, but not for mid-term elections
Voting on Veterans Day would be an honorable way to spend some of that day - move Veterans Day to be the same day as all national election days
Question 37, July 2001 - How did you come to this site?
Other search engine
Question 36, June 2001 - On June 5, 2001, Vermont Senator James Jeffords changed his party affiliation from Republican to Independent. Such changes are not unheard of, but this one will force a change in the leadership of the Senate from the Republicans to the Democrats. Some have said that such changes in party should necessitate a special election. Others that a politician's
party affiliation is no business of the voters. Your thoughts?
Voters should choose politicians based on their party, and when a politician wants to change his or her party, the voters should be able to choose someone new right away.
Voters should choose politicians based on the person, and the party has only tangental significance, so no special election is required.
Normally, a politician should be able to change parties without a special election, but in the case of a change causing such a sweeping change in Washington, the politician should resign, forcing a new election for which he or she could run.
Question 35, May 2001 - In Florida, a man wishes to remove his wife from life support machines against the wishes of her parents. The woman, Terri Schiavo, 27, slipped into a coma in 1990. Schiavo did not have a living will, though her husband Michael says that she would not have wanted to be kept alive artificially. In the absence of a living will, how should a court rule on
such a case?
The spouse should have the final say in all such medical decisions - the parents have no rights here.
The parents and spouse should have equal say in medical decisions, and if there is disagreement, the court should err on the side of life.
The parents should have final say in all such medical decisions.
Question 34, April 2001 - The Supreme Court has heard a case concerning a California law that permits an exception to the federal ban on the sale of marijuana. The exception, which is encoded in the laws of several other states as well, is for so-called "medical necessity." Some argue that these laws are an unconstitutional infringement on the federal commerce power, others
that it is a proper use of state sovereignty. What do you think?
The federal government should have absolute power over interstate commerce - the state laws should be struck down.
The federal power to regulate commerce is necessary, but the states should be able to act on their own to enact some exceptions.
In this specific case, the states should have the power to overrule the federal government, but in most other cases, exceptions should not be allowed.
The states should regulate commerce - this is just an illustration of how the federal power is abused.
Question 33, March 2001 - Former President Clinton is under fire for several last-minute pardons he issued. It is generally accepted that nothing can be done about these pardons. Should we change the pardoning power of the President?
The pardon power has been with us for over 200 years and works just fine. This current flap will blow over, as they all have in the past.
The pardon power is archaic and needs to be changed - the President is too political to have this power. It should be transferred to the Congress.
The President should have the pardon power, but it should be reviewable by the Congress.
The pardon power is counter to our system of justice and should be abolished.
Question 32, February 2001 - President Bush has proposed allowing religious organizations to apply for federal funds to support their relief efforts. These "faith-based" groups currently support their works through private donations. Civil libertarians and some religious spokespeople are wary, citing 1st Amendment concerns or concerns about the strings attached to the money.
What do you think?
Religious institutions have done a great job at helping the poor when no one else would - they deserve to be able to apply for federal funding.
The government is famous for attaching conditions to its dole - religious organizations should refuse to participate to maintain their autonomy.
The government must stay away from funding any religious organization, else it risks serious legal and political concerns.
Question 31, January 2001 - Scheduled for February, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case of Danny Kyllo, arrested for growing marijuana in his home. The police detected the possible presence of marijuana by scanning the man's home with an infra-red scanner. The scan was done without a warrant in the belief that since the scanner only read what existed in the environment,
and did not actually penetrate the home, that one was not needed. The information gathered by the scanner was used to obtain a search warrant. What should the Court do?
Easily detectable infra-red radiation is not something that police should need a warrant for.
It seems like police used good-faith in the case, and it should not be thrown out - but the Court should restrict future use of this technology.
The reading of infra-red radiation without a warrant is a clear violation of the search and seizure restrictions of the Constitution.
More To Explore