Inside the Beltway - Patriots up in arms (ACLU)

Where's the link?

[huac]

"Patriots up in arms...Chaired by former Rep. Bob Barr, Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, a national network of organizations from across the political spectrum, will begin its educational efforts today in Washington...The group plans to teach Americans about provisions of the Patriot Act that are supposedly out of line with the Constitution and violate Fourth Amendment freedoms, including the right to privacy...Other "patriots" besides the Georgia Republican include Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform; David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Laura Murphy, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and chief executive officer of the Free Congress Foundation; and John Snyder of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms...Among other things, the group will call on President Bush to reconsider his unqualified endorsement of the Patriot Act, and will seek congressional review of the most intrusive, unchecked provisions of the act."

[NJ_gent]

The base of the Constitution enumerated the powers of the Federal government, thus limiting (at least in theory) both its scope and its power. The Bill of Rights was put in specifically to protect certain rights that were regularly walked upon under Crown rule. The quartering of troops was a big problem for colonials living under Crown rule and makes no sense at all to people today. Of course, if the Federal government had an army regiment bust down doors in suburban Philadelphia looking for places to crash for the night, it'd start making a lot more sense.

"So, that is why I would like to see "sharper" language inserted in Amendment IV"

You're looking for more forceful, as opposed to more specific language then. A plaintext reading of IV, IX, and X shows them to be incredibly powerful. For that matter, II is rather strong. They're just ignored, so changing the language to make them sound more firm isn't going to help in my opinion. The sentiment of each Amendment is correct. What's missing are consequences. The trick is how to set up a system where consequences are real for people in control of the government at the time. We the people certainly don't provide consequences. It's like asking a child to punish himself whenever he sneaks into the kitchen to steal a cookie. What's he going to do? Send himself to his room... with the cookie.

[tahiti]

"The trick is how to set up a system where consequences are real for people in control of the government at the time."

Couldn't agree with you more.

How about this for "consequences?"

Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) — State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities.

On April 12th, I will be threatening the St. Louis County Council with this "consequence" if they pass a proposed, blatantly unconstitutional anti-smoking law.