What Part of the Bill of Rights Does He Not Understand?

Squeezed December 23, 2005

Remember when we were concerned about the makeup of the Supreme Court, and whether the nominees for the vacancies that have resulted would or would not cause a major shift in the direction of the court? I didn’t think so.

President Bush wants justices that will not “legislate from the bench” and strictly interpret the Constitution. After what has come to light in the past week, with our Glorious Leader deciding that he wants to spy on American citizens in the name of fighting terrorism…I’m not sure what document he’s referring to that he wants to have so strictly interpreted. Surely he’s not referring to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution I know of has a little sentence in there called the Fourth Amendment. It goes like this:

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.

What part of “No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,” does he not understand?

Yes, our country was attacked. Yes, the terrorists are reprehensible scum. But if we allow the terrorists to run us, if we allow them to undermine our long-standing rights of freedom of speech, of religion, and against invasions of privacy, they have already won. They would like nothing better than to see our way of life destroyed. And if they don’t have to lift a finger to do so, if they can keep us in constant fear for our lives, so much the better for them.

If the administration did something like this, what’s next. Will Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World become reality?

Enough already. I’ve added my name to the Democrats’ petition to get the Justice Department to de-classify the legal opinions that led to this decision, and I encourage you to do the same. (Thanks to Eric for letting me know about this.)

We have seen the real enemy, and it’s not al-Qaeda. It’s us.

3 Responses to “What Part of the Bill of Rights Does He Not Understand?”

  1. eric Says:

    The president can’t remember much about history and he doesn’t read the paper much. He doesn’t understand many things. I don’t know if he remembers that he took an oath to Protect the Constitution of the United States of America. If he is a strict Constitutionalist, he would remember there is a separation of powers in order to have a system of checks and balances. He is just acting like a totalitarian dictator and attempting to justify his actions the way the old Soviet and Nazi leadership did.
    I thought we went to war to protect our country – you know the freedoms and rights that separate us from dictatorships like, umm… ya know Iraq under Sadaam? If it is a War on Terrorism, why must he use terrorist tactics to win? I did not vote for him.
    I will not support any party that decides to use a threat of war to destroy its core values.
    The Constitution is the law, not just a good idea.
    It is time to defend the Constitution. Isn’t there an impeachment clause for High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

  2. Keith Says:

    Article 2, Section 4. But the reason I don’t advocate it, even if by a miracle Democrats gain one or both houses of Congress in ’06, is because if Bush goes, Cheney goes in. The cure would then be just as bad, if not worse, than the disease. Unless you try to impeach both of them at the same time…and it’s difficult enough to remove just the president.

    That’s one drawback to having a republican system of government rather than a parliamentary system. If we had a parliamentary system and something like this happened, dollars to doughnuts that we would either have the Democrats in Congress AND the White House, or special elections, within weeks. But we gotta work within the framework we have, I guess.

  3. eric Says:

    By the way, this is Amendment 6:

    Amendment VI

    (Ratified December 15, 1791)
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    I think the Bish Administration forgot to read this one, too. Even the 8th Amendment:

    (Ratified December 15, 1791)
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    We treat our prisoners cruelly and we have not given U.S. citizens due process of law and speedy trials under this current government.

    The proper way to go about dealing with these traitors and criminals is this:

    1. Remove the Republican Majority in Congress
    2. Indict The VP for releasing the name of the CIA operative – his Chief of Staff gave two different stories about it, so in the Ownership Society these guys talk about, he needs to own up for it.
    3. Remove Dr. Evil from the Office of the Vice President and institute the 25th Amendment.
    4. Indict the President for Treason and High Crimes for issuing the order to violate the consistution (4th Amendment and others).
    5. Remove him from office.
    6. By this time, the 2008 election should be ready. Remove the people from Office who are causing this depressing agenda.
    7. Impeach Allito from his office for supporting the destruction of the Constitution (treason).

    All this is following a simple Constitutionalist point of view. Hey, they claim to be the ones who want to follow the Constitution to the original maker’s intent.

Leave a Reply

Note: Comments from first time commenters are moderated and will be posted at my first opportunity, usually within 48 hours.