[villagerjoel]

Don't worry, because GWB put conservative judges in the SCOTUS...right?

[Redbob]

Surely you're not trying to say that the Supreme Court has never before infringed on the police powers of the States?

I don't think you even need to be a Constitutional scholar to show the falacy there.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Well, I guess he wont be running from the cops anymore now will he?

[kinoxi]

Ping to self for later read.

[Carry_Okie]

The framer of the Fourth Amendment's first section, John Bingham, was clear and dead serious when he said over and over that those privileges and immunities are only those found under article 4, section 2 as they had always existed, and not the bill of rights.

Bingham framed the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Fourth, and was a crook to boot (a shill for the railroads). His omission of the word "natural" in front of the word "persons" in the citizenship clause, was one of the greatest crimes ever visited upon the Constitution.

[o_zarkman44]

next interferance of official duty heading for the Supreme Court; the War Powers Act. The RATs must strip Bush of the ability to fight a war against terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere unless they can micromanage the details of battle to suit their own agendas.

[robertpaulsen]

"The framer of the Fourth Amendment's first section, John Bingham, was clear and dead serious when he said over and over that those privileges and immunities ..."

I believe the author meant, "The framer of the Fourth Fourteenth Amendment's first section ...".

[robertpaulsen]

"There is latterly no Fourth Amendment issue under the federal Constitution because it had been strongly established by the court and the framers of the fourteenth amendment to apply to anyone other than the Federal Government."

Gee Louise! Again? This should read,

"There is latterly no Fourth Amendment issue under the federal Constitution because it had been strongly established by the court and the framers of the fourteenth amendment not to apply to anyone other than the Federal Government."

[robertpaulsen]

"He officially stated in January of 1871 that the privileges and immunities incorporated nothing other than they had before the fourteenth."

That may indeed be true, but the U.S. Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment (not the Privileges and Immunities Clause) to incorporate the Bill of Rights and make them applicable to the states.

"The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police‑‑which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment‑‑is basic to a free society. It is therefore implicit in 'the concept of ordered liberty' and as such enforceable againt the States through the Due Process Clause."
-- Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)

[Sandy]

John Bingham, was clear and dead serious when he said over and over that those privileges and immunities are only those found under article 4, section 2 as they had always existed, and not the bill of rights.

Huh? Bingham believed that the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens *included* the Bill of Rights (Amds 1-8). He stated this quite often and explicitly. The author couldn't be more wrong here. Pretty hard to take him seriously after such a ridiculous error.