Source? Proof? Or is it more pissant butt-smoke?
And my preferred view of the Constitution is this:
Amendment the Fourth:
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.
Yea, that pesky Constitution thingy.
The funny thing is, the Patriot requires warrants.
I guess the tea party, who believes in limited consitutional government, is a tiny fraction, no more than 5%, of Conservatives.
What exactly was the Conservative message again?
Smaller Government except for a massive police state?
The Patriot Act makes it very difficult to explain why Republicans and Conservatives are actually the party of less Government.
Many political arguments between 2 people in a public space are not to try to persuade the person you’re arguing with, but to persuade the people listening. Democrats know full well that the Patriot Act is a very effective tool for them.
Democrats know to bring it up every single time we say we’re for limited government. And we have no answer for it. It really makes our lives difficult as political messengers.
And people who believe in limited constitutional government are not the people who want to reply “oh, you like Muslims and terrorism”. We’re trying to get the message of limited constitutional government out there, and the Republicans just tarnish the brand.