Just read your article, Why Newt is Right. I disagree with both Newt and Bobbitt. Newt has been too long in politics and needs to re-learn how to think as an ordinary citizen. Like other politicians, he seems to think that the Constitution is a sort of "nice to have" but not to be taken seriously in times of emergency. But the Consititution was written precisely for such times when men's minds are clouded by overwhelming events. (I know I'm arguing against the wind here.)

As for losing cities: it is horrible to think of it, but I think we are more resilient than that. Our nation has actually endured greater tragedies--it can do so again. And who says that every tragedy can be prevented; so that if we seriously took Bobbitt's and Newt's adivce we may well wind up with both destroyed cities and no free speech?

Finally, am I the only one to wonder whether such stockpiled laws would be used for genuine emergencies? Do we not have a lot of examples of nations who had emergency provisions--such as did the former Soviet Union--which were used to against honest citizens? Or are we simply assuming this problem away because of our belief in Americian exceptionalism?