I've been thinking about your statements on combating terrorism ,providing for national security vis -a -vis defending the Constitution. Given your experience, and your obvious thoughtfulness, I wanted to better understand your position.
So my initial questions are:
Is it all black and white to you ?
How do you define "provide for the common defense" and reconcile the Preamble with Article IV with relation to Homeland Security?
Would you support violations of Article IV if you deemed it an effective terrorism strategy, thereby providing for the common defense? Would it have to be in defense of a "significant" number?
I choose Article IV as the obvious part of the Constitution that is not being "supported, protected, defended" but I was wondering what other aspects of the Constitution you feel are being violated with our current Homeland security antiterrorism policy?