Skip to comments.
Inside the Beltway - Patriots up in arms (ACLU)
Where's the link?
Posted on 03/22/2005 2:38:53 PM PST by huac
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-22 last
To: tahiti
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.
21
posted on
03/24/2005 3:32:39 PM PST
by
NJ_gent
(Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
To: NJ_gent
"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.
22
posted on
03/24/2005 3:39:03 PM PST
by
tahiti
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-22 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson