You seem like a well-reasoned person, so I must be missing something.
That is, I don't know what "reasoned argument" you need other than the very real and constant accretion of power by the federal government. Power, I might add, that frequently comes at the expense of our rights and privacy. From the Patriot Act to the ugliness it empowered (NSLs, etc.) to the broadening of power referenced in the subject article and everything in between; there is a constant, undeniable power creep. Now, you may need "reasoned argument" to help you establish whether you believe this is justified, etc. But, you cannot deny the existence of an ever-broadening government power.
Perhaps you found my wording too rhetorical for your taste. I can certainly live with that. But, if it is substance you seek, that substance can be found in the article itself along with the countless other instances of the government accruing more power. My comment was merely commentary on this substance.
Still, we may disagree on where all of this is taking us. You say that it's hyperbole to speak of the nation's dismantling. I would argue that the nation is already fundamentally differerent and that its demise, on principal, is not only imminent, but nearly complete. It is the sum total of changes like this one that makes it so.
Because, irrespective of the opinion you reach through reasoned argument as to the "neccessity" of the changes, the changes themselves represent the morphing of our nation into something entirely different; in other words, its dismantling piece by piece.
That is, I don't know what "reasoned argument" you need other than the very real and constant accretion of power by the federal government. Power, I might add, that frequently comes at the expense of our rights and privacy. From the Patriot Act to the ugliness it empowered (NSLs, etc.) to the broadening of power referenced in the subject article and everything in between; there is a constant, undeniable power creep. Now, you may need "reasoned argument" to help you establish whether you believe this is justified, etc. But, you cannot deny the existence of an ever-broadening government power.
Perhaps you found my wording too rhetorical for your taste. I can certainly live with that. But, if it is substance you seek, that substance can be found in the article itself along with the countless other instances of the government accruing more power. My comment was merely commentary on this substance.
Still, we may disagree on where all of this is taking us. You say that it's hyperbole to speak of the nation's dismantling. I would argue that the nation is already fundamentally differerent and that its demise, on principal, is not only imminent, but nearly complete. It is the sum total of changes like this one that makes it so.
Because, irrespective of the opinion you reach through reasoned argument as to the "neccessity" of the changes, the changes themselves represent the morphing of our nation into something entirely different; in other words, its dismantling piece by piece.