Infringement on one is an infringement on all

[FWiedner]

Infringement on one is an infringement on all


"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 above is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. It is clear and concise. I do not see the phrase "if you don't have anything to hide why are you worried" in it at all.

The authors were very clear. People have constitutional protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and we have the constitutional right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects. Monitoring private telephone calls without a warrant is no more right than opening personal mail or searching a private home without a warrant.

People who actually believe that if you have nothing to hide then why worry, scare me because they are willing to give away the right of privacy to an authority who can make up the rules as the game goes on and can declare anything or anybody a "threat" and can, if given the motivation, decide that what you do, what you think and what you say is wrong for this country.

If the president has the power to waive or disregard the Fourth Amendment he has the right to waive and disregard any part of the Constitution he sees fit, to include "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as specified in the Second Amendment.

You can't have it both ways.

We, as a nation, had better start thinking about what is going on before we have our rights whittled away by a single person deciding what is right and what is wrong.

DAVID K. HINSON

Clarksville 37043

http://www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051230/OPINION03/512300341/1014

.

[victorcharlie]

I couldn't agree more........

[magooch]

Would that things could be as simple as the Constitution implies.  To begin with, there is nothing in the Constitution about electronic communications.  All things that have transpired in the decades since the Constitution was written have had to be filtered through the courts and Congress to determine how the Constitution should apply.

You people who are paranoid about our great Constitution being violated, would probably go out of your mind if you knew the extent to which the courts have allowed exemptions and exceptions to Constitutional guarantees.

The only answer to all of this is constant and consistent vigilance and oversight.  I applaud the vigilance of the paranoid among us, but I do not agree with your simplistic conclusions.  Drastic circumstances sometimes require a leader to lead in ways that steps on some peoples sensitivities.  That doesn't give license to break the law, but sometimes what the law is, is left to interpretation.  I appreciate a leader who has the balls to do what he thinks is right and prudent when the country is in jeopardy.  There is always time to revisit and make corrections after the emergency has passed.

In all of this latest flap about the NSA eavesdropping, no one can sight an  instance where any law abiding citizen has suffered, or had his life disrupted by the surveillance that has been conducted.  However, there is the very real fact that this country has not suffered any further terrorist attacks, consequent to 9/11.  It is unknown whether that can be attributed to the NSA monitoring, or not.  I credit the President for doing what he can to fight terrorism.  I'm sure it would be much easier to just turn it over to law enforcement and some prosecutor.

[FWiedner]

.


"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." — William Pitt


 :?

[Don Fischer]

I might get this a bit off but:

   "People that would trade liberty's for safty, deserve neither."
                                                                     Benjermin Franklin