How About This Quote!!

Some pretty Heavy Hitters:

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.

The problem with the amendment is that nowhere is it stated whom will be defining the terms "unreasonable", or "probable cause".

Read all of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and see how easy it is to come up with day to day violations of those "rights" mentioned in those documents.

One thing many people fail to realize is that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written to itemize and LIMIT our government, not itemize and limit our rights as citizens. Push come to shove, the government is not ALLOWED to do anything that is not specifically granted that authority in that document.

IMHO, of course.

Yes, I do understand that this is not a perfect world. I have lived in it for more than 1/2 a century, but what I was trying to establish was:
In everything I read about all these raids and confiscations there was never any mention of warrants stating specific items of search,or for any specific person. No matter who determines the
"probable cause" they still must be specific about what they want to seize. And if there is no BonaFide expert whose information cannot be impeached than they have no grounds to seize anything.
I am not trying to cause a problem only focusing on the main root
" The tactics of the fish and game commision are UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Thank you

Dont just assume that because someone hasnt mentioned those things that they werent in place. I would be willing to bet every warrant had all the "t" crossed and "i" dotted. And yet sadly as Rich has pointed out for many even if the specifics were stated and the warrants were legal the whole process can still be viewed as unconstitutional.

As Rich has stated the Bill of Rights and Constitution were set up to establish the right of the citizens from the oppressive nature of the government. Remembering what they were fighting against in the Revolutionary War was exactly what they were trying to avoid in the framing of the Constitution and birth of the new nation. Where we are heading is a legal standard that can interpret the terms of the amendments in the manner that will accomplish the task "needed". And "we the people" are loosing our rights as we go.

All our government has to do is declare "war" on something and our rights get eaten up a little more.

So, How 'bout that John Ashcroft?

Oh wait...



You think things are screwed up now...
Just wait until Bush gets re-elected.
Yahoo!

(Now I'm really going to get it...)

It is a fine line upon which a government of fallable people must try to balance themselves as they attempt to keep innocent civilians safe without violating their civil liberties.

Think about a small child, for a moment. On the one hand, a parent wants that child to experience as much as possible so as to grow into a well-rounded adult, with all of the understanding and knowledge necessary to be successful. On the other, the same parent realizes that there is a whole world full of creeps: murderers, rapists, drug pushers, gangs, and donw right lousy people out there to do great harm to your precious baby. So what do you do? Just turn them loose and hope for the best? Lock them in their rooms until they're 30? SOmewhere in between, obviously, but where do you draw the line on each individual instance?

We, the collective US society, are not children of the government with no ability to choose for ourselves, but the government IS responsible for the safety of the whole. There are already those blaming the President for not doing more to prevent 9-11. Well, excuse me, but you simply cannot have it both ways, and trying to do so sounds a lot like the teenager that wants to be safe at home with all of the liberties of being out on his own.

That being said, I think the administration, including President Bush and Atty. Gen. Ashcroft, are doing just fine. Are there instances in which I wish other actions would have been taken? Of course. However, I, for one, am thankful that none of the other options with which we were faced in 2000 are in that oval office right now.

As to the purposes and intents of the Bill of Rights, well, I'll just briefly point out that there were those of our Founding Fathers who did not want the Bill of Rights included. Why? Because they were afraid that some day scholars would want to infer that the rights of the people were LIMITED to those listed rights, instead of understanding that the rights listed were only those deemed most important to protect at the time. The rest of the right of the people and the individual States were preserved fromt he Federal government by way of the 9th and 10th amendments to try to avoid such misunderstandings.

Given the initial context of this thread, I just realized that it could be interpreted that I thought the raids on homes were somehow made acceptable by way of attaching a sense of national security to the actions. I do not think that at all, and, as far as I know, no one in the administration has made such a claim either.