I understand this, but the more serious trigger words should be taken very seriously. If they're on Facebook, the government won't take it as seriously.

Yeah, "bomb" or "terrorist" might be caught in a filter, but I'm pretty sure the government has enough common sense, although it might not seem like it, to figure out if a post is fake or not.

Sure, but a lot of the things people would look up to find some of the things we don't want them seeing, they'd have to have something at least slightly related to what they're trying to find. You're not going to look up "Rocks" and find military blueprints.

You have a good point about websites getting rid of personal information once it's no longer useful. What if someone wanted to purchase from a website more than once? Who wants to go through re-entering all their information?

I agree with you, our freedom of speech and the press is restricted. But, also they wouldn't be able to find out if you did use an illegal websited if they didn't at least have a loose regulation.

Sure, the regulation would stop hackers and maybe save money, but it would also be VERY costly. Imagine how long it would take to regulate everything on every website. The interent is HUGE. Take into account all the people that would take and they also need a salary, therefore making it more costly than money-saving.

Maybe they should regulate certain "trigger words" that could be a big red flag. They should only monitor your internet usage if you are or become suspicious or a threat to the government.

I don't think the government should be able to control the internet, but it should be able to control what's on the internet. Instead, the government should enforce stricter privacy policies on websites with more important persoanl information, like banks, insurance, private government, and websites that want your social security number, to make it harder to get into.

I think the Judicial branch is equally important to government as the other two branches. The third branch creates for better checks and balances, due to the fact that if there were only two, the first could always take away from the second and vice versa.

True, but that doesn't mean I can't support the ideas of the Constitution or how it divides the power. Sure, an Anti-Federalist might not support it as much, but in order for it to be passed, it needed the okay from both parties.

I never said that we wanted a President to severly alter our government, just sort of direct it towards his opinions. Not all government changes require money, some just require a slight change of heart or mind. Government is completely decided by the people. The House and Senate representatives reflect the opinions of the people, so there's no way we would ever have completely equal Democrat and Republican numbers. I think a person who conforms to a new opinion just because it's Obama's opinion is a terrible politician because his vote no longer reflects his opinion or the opinion of the people. Is that not the purpose of government, to reflect the opinions of the people?

Yes, but the Anti-Federalists wanted the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, and the freedom of speech, religion, and petition are all in the Bill of Rights. If the Federalists had their way, we might not have had the Bill of Rights.

Yeah, it gives the President a lot of power, but we wouldn't trust him with that much power unless the people had the power to vote for him, which they do. A law can't be classified as Republican law; it can only be based on Republican ideas and values. What do you mean by Congress being even? Just because the President vetoes it shouldn't effect anyone's opinion, it should be his arguement he makes as to why he vetoes it. If a poitician's opinion is altered just by Mr. President's veto, that makes him a bad politician. Yes, a veto allows a chance at a failure, but when we elect our President, we accept the fact that our government is going to be altered by his opinions (ex. Obamacare). When the President uses his veto ability, he puts forth his opinion and uses the power of the executive branch to call for a re-vote; he doesn't make everyone redo everything.

The President can't just veto anything he wants, though. There's a whole long process to it. If the President doesn't approve of a law, he will return the law unsigned to Congress. Then, the President has to explain himself and support his opinions. That in itself is a veto. After the veto, Congress can override the President's veto by a two thirds majority from both houses, therefore eliminating the President's capablity to veto anything he wants.

If I was an anti-Federalist, I think I would have passed the Constitution, but I would have really pushed for the Bill of Rights to be included within it. The Bill of Rights may not have ever been created if it wasn't for the anti-Federalists. I think the Constitution did a decent job of seperating the powers from Federal to State level, a very anti-Federalist idea.