USConstitution.net 2005 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 2005. For results from other years, please go to the Main Results Page.
Question 89, December 2005: The Senate will be holding confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito in January. What topic do you most want to know Alito's opinions about?
I really don't care
Question 88, November 2005: If you were President, what kind of political philosophy would you look for in a new Justice of the Supreme Court?
I would not look at someone's political leanings, but instead look for some one well-schooled in Constitutional Law who has the respect of his or her peers.
Question 87, October 2005: George Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to sit on the Supreme Court, replacing retiring Justice Sandra O'Connor. O'Connor has vowed to sit on the Court until her replacement is confirmed by the Senate. What should O'Connor do in the meantime?
O'Connor should act as though she is not retiring and hear and fully participate in cases heard by the Court. She should vote with the Court on those cases she hears. Her replacement should start fresh with only new cases.
O'Connor should act as though she is not retiring and hear and fully participate in cases heard by the Court. Once her replacement is confirmed, however, she should resign immediately and stay out of cases that have not yet been decided. Any case the Court feels should be reheard by the full Court can be rescheduled.
O'Connor should play a minimal role in any Court proceedings. She should step away as soon as the nominee is confirmed, leaving as little footprint on the session as is possible.
Regardless of her vow to stay on, O'Connor should step down now to avoid the confusion and uncertainty her presence might cause.
Question 86, September 2005: Confirmation hearings for Judge John Roberts are scheduled to start in September. Senators almost universally agree that they should not ask a nominee about how he or she would rule on any particular case - but then they tend to ask questions that ask them to do just that, but not in so many words. Do the rules for confirmation hearings need to be
changed to limit the scope of questions, or are things just right the way they are?
The rules definitely need to be changed. The types of questions the Senators ask are out of control.
While some questions might be out of bounds, the current process allows the Senate to get a good read on how a nominee will rule from the bench, and it needs to stay the same.
Question 85, August 2005: Democrats, and a few Republicans, in the Senate has delayed voting on the nomination of John Bolton to the position of Ambassador to the United Nations. With a Congressional recess in place, President Bush used the recess appointment to give Bolton the ambassadorship. What do you think about this?
Recess appointments are a part of the Constitution and a clear Presidential power. If Bush wanted Bolton in the position, he was right to use the recess appointment.
While recess appointments to other positions might be fine, the Ambassador to the U.N. should be properly voted on by the Senate. Bush should have waited for the Senate to move on the nomination.
The recess appointment was not intended to bypass the Senate but to appoint someone when the Senate is not available. Bush should not have used it.
Question 84, July 2005 Each July, this survey will be offered, allowing us to track, over time, the political persuasion of our visitors. Questions are asked about party affiliation as well as economic and social ranking on a scale of 1 to 9 (1 being very conservative and 9 being very liberal).
1 = Very Conservative
1 = Very Conservative
9 = Very Liberal
Question 83, June 2005: After 30 years, the identity of Deep Throat, the White House insider who kept Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein on track as they investigated the Watergate scandal in the Nixon Administration, has revealed himself. 91-year-old Mark Felt was the Assistant Director of the FBI during Nixon's tenure. Most are calling Felt a hero,
others a self-interested opportunist, and still others a traitor. What do you think?
He was just out for revenge
He was on a power trip
He was a traitor to the White House
Question 82, May 2005: Just a few days being paroled from a Japanese prison for firearms charges, Gary Small returned to the United States and bought a handgun. He answered "no" to the question of whether he had ever been convicted of a felony. Once his Japanese conviction was discovered, he was arrested for breaking a federal law prohibiting the ownership of a gun by anyone
convicted of a felony "in any court." In a decision many found surprising, Small's conviction was thrown out when the liberal wing of the Court ruled that the Congress meant "any U.S. court." Conservative justices, in their dissent, said that "any" court should mean "any court in the world." What do you think?
The Court should have read the law as expansively as possible, and foreign convictions should be included in the definition of "any" - the Court got it wrong.
Considering that some foreign courts have much lower standards than the U.S., it seems reasonable that Congress intended "any" to mean just U.S. courts - the Court got it right.
Question 81, April 2005 Terri Schiavo, long a pawn in a battle of lawsuits between her husband and her parents, died at the tail end of March. Her husband argued that he was her legal guardian and he knew that her wishes were not to prolong life in a vegetative state. Her parents countered that as a Catholic, Terri would have wanted all possible measures taken to prolong her
life. Courts at all levels agreed with the husband. The fight was made quite public, which is extraordinary in itself. Even more extraordinary were the series of actions by legislatures and executives, at the state and national levels, to try to prolong Terri's life How do you feel about the state and national governments getting involved?
The governments were entirely in the right - it is their role to look out for the least of us, those without a voice.
While Terri's parents had every right to use all legal means at their disposal, the legislatures and executives should have butted out.
Terri's husband should have gotten what he asked for for Terri years ago - all the court cases after the first one were a waste of time.
Question 80, March 2005 Democrats and Republicans alike approach Social Security with trepidation. Is it a political third rail, inviting certain death if touched? Perhaps - but all can agree that something must be done now, while it is early, to ensure this most graven of political images. Ideas abound. Which of the following do you think is the best chance to save Social
Private accounts are the way to go - a percentage of my contributions set aside just for me and invested how I wish.
We have to raise the retirement age - people are living a lot longer than ever before, and can be productive a lot longer, too.
Benefits have to be cut. In this day and age, you have to save some of your own money to retire. You cannot rely solely on the government dole. Plan ahead for cuts, and entice people to start saving now.
The $90,000 cap on taxable income should be eliminated - the rich afford to pay more and they should.
Taxes have to be raised, there's no two ways about it. The system is designed so that the young subsidize the old - it is a way of honoring those who came before you.
None of these will do it - we must negotiate some combination of two or more of these ideas to make it palatable to today's recipients and workers.
Social Security is a sham. It should be abolished. People should save their own money, and turn to family and charities when they do not have enough.
Question 79, February 2005 In a recent Supreme Court case, it was decided that the police can send a drug-sniffing dog up to any car stopped for any normal traffic violation, as long as the arrival of the dog does not extend the traffic stop for an abnormal period. There need be no specific reason for the police to initiate the "sniff." How do you feel about this?
I agree with the Court: If there is no cost in time to the average driver, such a search is fine. There is no right to possess contraband, and this seems to be a reasonable police power.
The Court was wrong: If the police want dogs to sniff-search every car, every cop should have a dog. To call a canine unit to a traffic stop is just one step towards even more loss of freedom. We must tread very carefully here.
The Court was right and should have gone further: There should be no presumption of privacy in a car - it is a car, not a home, for goodness sake. Any search of any car should be legal.
Question 78, January 2005 The Bush administration has been criticized from several sides about its pledges to help the victims of the Christmas-week tsunami in the Indian Ocean. Originally, only $10 million was pledged, then $35 million, and later promises of $350 million in aid plus military assistance was pledged. This begs the question, however - should the United States be
helping the victims of this tsunami, or of any natural disaster that does not hit the U.S.?
No, the U.S. should not feel as though it needs to take care of the world. We would not ask for help if it was us, why should we offer it?
Yes, we should help, because if we don't it will hurt us in world opinion of us - and if anything really bad ever does hit us, how could we ask for help if we needed it?
Of course we should help - with our wealth and power comes great responsibility. Who is hit by these disasters is of no consequence - the fact the we can do something means that we absolutely must.