Posted on 10/08/2006 4:02:36 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
PING!
So the premise of this is that the President is evil and destroying the Constitution? And I'm being pinged to this...why?
"the Bush administration appears to have succeeded in convincing Congress that to succeed in the "Global War on Terror," the Fourth Amendment must not only yield, but be destroyed."
Is this new? I thought the War on Drugs already took care of things like that. Now that it's happening to conservatives, it's something new, I guess.
The Amendment states:
Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It does not state:
Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue.
"The devil is always in the details..."
Okay, then let me play the devil here...
I know I'm gonna get flamed here by people who don't see my point, and that's okay... but does anyone else see a schizophrenia when it comes to this whole "privacy rights" thing?
Privacy Rights are a sacred thing when you're talking about the Patriot Act, but are a bogus act of judicial activism when talking about Roe?
I mean, conservatives have to get this straight. On one hand, we talk about minimal government involvement in our lives, but then when something like Shivo comes along we plead for the SCOTUS to send in the Army. We talk about intrusive government when it comes to property rights, but then we raise holy hell when somone opens a nudie bar.
Yes, yes, I agree with conservatives on their points that I raised (above). However, when you invoke "privacy rights" to back OUR side, I can only shudder when I think that the same argument is used in Roe V Wade!!
The war on terror can be won very simply, by burying dead Islamic terrorists in pig's blood.
How about we just say it's okay to search mosques and people named Muhammed?
Unfortunately, I doubt very many of the congresscritters voting on this legislation, nor many of the people campaigning for or against it, are actually familiar with all the details in question. Of course, if any details are left up to regulatory agencies, that should be a red flag.
On the other hand, the Cory Maye case suggests the Fourth Amendment is practically a dead letter anyway.
Bob Barr is the ACLU's token "conservative." And I don't mean the "American Conservative Union." I'm talking 'bout the OTHER ACLU.
I only read this far and stopped because it occurred to me that if our constitution provides vital protection to criminals, then WTF? I think the founding fathers intended vital protection for law abiding citizens but not for criminals.
Roe v. Wade has little to do with privacy, and some of the follow-on decisions have nothing to do with any reasonable meaning of the word. Something like Lawrence v. Texas would be a better example; there, the Supreme Court was deliberately put in a tough situation and should have bent a few procedural rules slightly instead of being pressured into a wrong decision.
IMHO, the fundamental question in Lawrence, which should have been up to a jury to decide, was whether the conduct of the defendants was in any meaningful way worse than other conduct by other people of which the police were aware and did nothing. The proper thing for the Supreme Court to have done would have been to remand the case to jury trial with such instructions. I am well aware that it is highly irregular for the Supreme Court to mandate a remedy other than what petitioners request, but such a course of action would have been better than either letting the prosecution of Lawrence stand or acquitting him outright.
IMHO, many "crimes" should be defined in such a way that what is forbidden is performing the act in such a fashion that a reasonable person would expect that others may be bothered or offended by it. If an act is performed in such a way that nobody knows about it, there's no crime; if such an act is discovered (and causes offense) by a chain of events the actor could not have reasonably foreseen, there should also be no crime. The question for the jury would then be whether the actor should have reasonably foreseen the discovery of his action.
The Fourth Amendment protections apply to all free persons. Honoring the Fourth Amendment will sometimes increase the difficulty of catching crooks, but it will seldom pose an insurmountable obstacle to enforcement of reasonable laws. Unfortunately, the War on Drugs has been used to shred the Fourth Amendment almost beyond recognition.
Constitutional democracy has been dead for some time.
I'll give you that if you'll trade me for those "Click It Or Ticket" roadblocks.
Civil Libertarian Extremists concur with your version #2.
The legislation is facially too broad and the judiciary will in all likelihood find it so and strike it down as a transgression of the Fourth Amendment. The end result will be that, while the Congress and the White House can thump its respective chest and proclaim how tough each is and that, but for the judiciary's weak-kneed interference, the executive would be rooting out bad guys, the reality will be that their election based overreaching has delayed the accomplishment of that goal. Any evidence or conviction obtained by the use of such a impermissibly overly broad, warrantless intrusion will be set aside and the exact opposite of the desired end will result; all to look tough in an election year.
Best way to avoid a roadblock is to stay secure in your home looking at your papers, eh!
They are not terribly "civil", since those little modifications to the 4th Amendment would guarantee the rights of criminals to dispossess the poor and weak.
*shakes head*
The composer of this opinion compost obviously has no concept of pin registers or how they work, let alone standing case law on the matter.
Such ignorance is a great threat to our Republic, ... wait, is Bob Barr REALLY that ignorant?
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.