"Preventing terrorist attacks is of the highest important, but trashing the Constitution is not the right way to do it"
About this Quote
Engel’s line is built to sound like a security hawk while drawing a bright, TV-ready line against the post-9/11 habit of treating civil liberties as optional. The key move is the opening concession: “Preventing terrorist attacks is of the highest import...” He grants the premise that dominates national-security debates (safety first), then pivots hard with “but,” repositioning himself as the adult in the room who won’t let urgency become a blank check.
The phrasing does a lot of quiet political work. “Trashing the Constitution” is deliberately coarse, almost tabloid language, meant to puncture the euphemisms that often camouflage rights restrictions: “enhanced,” “temporary,” “targeted.” By choosing “trashing” instead of “eroding” or “bending,” Engel suggests not a careful tradeoff but a reckless, disposable attitude toward the country’s core bargain. It’s a moral accusation disguised as policy talk.
The subtext is aimed at an audience exhausted by false choices. He’s rejecting the rhetorical trap that frames liberty as naive and surveillance as grown-up realism. At the same time, he avoids the civil-libertarian purity test by affirming that terrorism is a “highest” priority. That balance matters for a politician: it signals seriousness to centrists and moderates while offering constitutionalists a line they can rally around.
Contextually, the quote fits the era of PATRIOT Act renewals, warrantless surveillance controversies, and executive-branch expansion. It’s less a legal argument than a boundary-setting slogan: you can fight terror aggressively, Engel implies, without turning the Constitution into collateral damage.
The phrasing does a lot of quiet political work. “Trashing the Constitution” is deliberately coarse, almost tabloid language, meant to puncture the euphemisms that often camouflage rights restrictions: “enhanced,” “temporary,” “targeted.” By choosing “trashing” instead of “eroding” or “bending,” Engel suggests not a careful tradeoff but a reckless, disposable attitude toward the country’s core bargain. It’s a moral accusation disguised as policy talk.
The subtext is aimed at an audience exhausted by false choices. He’s rejecting the rhetorical trap that frames liberty as naive and surveillance as grown-up realism. At the same time, he avoids the civil-libertarian purity test by affirming that terrorism is a “highest” priority. That balance matters for a politician: it signals seriousness to centrists and moderates while offering constitutionalists a line they can rally around.
Contextually, the quote fits the era of PATRIOT Act renewals, warrantless surveillance controversies, and executive-branch expansion. It’s less a legal argument than a boundary-setting slogan: you can fight terror aggressively, Engel implies, without turning the Constitution into collateral damage.
Quote Details
| Topic | Freedom |
|---|
More Quotes by Eliot
Add to List
