The 4 th amendment

[k9kxq]

FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - '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.'

Presidents oath of office: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I'm sure someone can explain this to the neo conservatives so they might be able to understand...

kxq

[n0jaa]

Nah, it's too simple for them.

[K6BTM]

Remember... "It's just a piece of paper." http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[KC9ECI]

It's more of a suggestion than an actual rule.

[n5tjd]

Although I am not a big fan of the lastest issue.... the key word is "unreasonable." It isn't defined and is open to interpretation..... They can't do it without reason, and being a terror suspect is a reason.

The part about a warrant though... I would think that it would mean you have to have a warrant, but if you read it, it sounds like it is merely describing a warrant. It doesn't come out and say (in the quoted text) that you have to have a warrant, though I imagine that was simply a given.

End thoughts: Jeez I don't know. Legal writting always gives me a headache. Either way, I think there should always be a check to every power and this issue doesn't seem to. Not to say the President has nothing but good intentions, it just becomes easily abused and mis-used if not checked.

[al2n]

I have a problem with this.

Our government has been spying on its citizens for decades. Ruby Ridge, Waco, road blocks to check for DWI, illegal phone taps, etc....

It will never stop. The fact that this time it made the press is rather suprising. It usually gets buried on page B27 of the local paper.

This is gonna hurt the White House in the long run.

[w5klb]

Riiiiiight.

Let all find our tin foil caps, start building our fortified bunkers, and start watching for those "black hellofacopters". Only, it's not "UN" wanting to invade, it's our own government that's "out to get us".

I love it when a conspiracy therory comes together http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ Dec. 25 2005,12:29)]I'm sure someone can explain this to the neo conservatives so they might be able to understand...

kxq
Please. They're still having trouble with evolution, the concept of a majority and opening that pickle jar.

[KC2KFC]

The Fourth Amendment starts out with the right of the "people". Does this mean people of the world? Does this mean people of the United States? In other words what people have this right under the consitution of the United States? Do you have to be a citizen of the United States of America to have this right? Or can anyone in the world have this right under our constitution?

[W3MIV]

The first obligation of government is to protect the people from dangers, foreign and domestic. How that is interpreted has grown in a constant stream from the days of John Adams. The direction has never changed, and it never will. It was Abraham Lincoln who tipped the bucket over during the Civil War. Go read your history.

Any of you who think this is new stuff are naifs. Those who believe that it would be different from Party to Party are even sillier.

[k0ews]

W3MIV~
Very well stated; and I couldn't have said it better myself, even though I tried several times. Your perception is right on the money.

[WA2DYA]

W3MIV

You have said it for me also.

My rights will not do me any good if I'm in the cemetery.

--- CHAS

[W2ILP]

Everyone forgets that a warrant is written by a judge. A judge is not a fortune teller or a mind reader. He is human. He makes his decision on the basis of information but the information may or may not be conclusive. He is to determine what is UNREASONABLE and what might be necessary. Where does the judge get information that may lead to issuing a warrant and permitting entry to private property to conduct a search? In my opinion information gained from survalance or monitoring is better than "He said She said" accusations....BUT the ketch 22 is that some folks believe that even survailance or monitoring is an unreasonable invasion of private property, even when it does not yet involve entering private property without permission. How can we find out if something is NOT UNREASONABLE if we don't permit wire taping or the use of Geiger counters in suspecious cases?

This reminds me of the Air Force Base I was once assigned to. You could not enter if you did not have a security pass and you could not get a security pass unless you entered. Obviously an exception had to be made for me after I was there for a week, or I would still be getting paid for waiting to get into the base and watching TV at a nearby motel.

w2ilp (Impossible Legal Passes)

[W2ILP]

As to who has rights to the protections written in the U.S. Constitution: - #I dunno if foreiners have the same rights as U.S. citizens, especially when they are in their own countrys. #
The case for the citizens of Iraq is fuzzy, to say the least, because our president says that we freed them from a dictatorship and have brought them, freedom. #What better freedom could we have brought them than our own Bill of Rights?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

w2ilp (Impossibly Liberated People)...another example of Bush's unreasonable hypocracy.

[N4AUD]

w2ilp, as part of my job, I issue search warrants. They are obtained in Virginia from a magistrate, not a judge.

A search warrant can only be issued if the officer has personal knowledge or got the information from a reliable informant, either named or unnamed. The reliability of the informant must be articulated in the affidavit before probable cause can be established.

In the case that has been discussed in this forum recently, the probable cause would come from personal knowledge gained by surveillance (spelling? I hate French words). Some things have been ruled "plain view" by the courts, for instance anything that can be seen from an aircraft. It's done all the time here in the summer when law enforcement has the yearly marijuana irradication. National Guard helicopters fly LOW and slow looking for pot fields, and the evidence obtained is perfectly legal in court. Seeing something through a window is plain view, and if radiation is leaving your property it's legal for law enforcement to monitor it, just like the trash you leave on the curb. You did know your garbage is fair game, didn't you?

[W2ILP]

Thank you k1alk:

I won't think of getting into any legal debate with you as I am not legally qualified, but I don't think that you are in any basic disagreement with the reasoning in my post. #You can substitute Magistrate for Judge and still understand that a human decision is made on the basis of reasonable evidence, including surveillance. #Surveillance can cover anything that is used for evidence before a private property is actually entered, including Aeriel photography, window peeping and garbage picking, as well as wire tapping and radiation detecting. #

Thanks again because your post makes more sense than most of the others.

Any state in the U.S.A. is great...
Even if a judge is called a magistrate!

w2ilp (Intelligence Looks Perilous?)...Then we can not wait to enter.

[N4AUD]

Actually, I was agreeing with you.

[wv6z]

Quote[/b] (k1alk @ Dec. 25 2005,16:10)]Actually, I was agreeing with you.
Bwaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa....... kinda funny how everyone is so defensive around here that the first thing they do is to lash out at someone before reading the content of a post, ain't it?

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (k1alk @ Dec. 26 2005,16:50)]You did know your garbage is fair game, didn't you?
Reminds me of an incident that took place during my training at the illustrious Fort Holabird back in the early sixties. Enough time has passed, and Holabird is now an industrial park (the intelligence school long ago moved to AZ), so I doubt I am violating any confidences.

We were being taught the rudiments of vehicular surveillance, and we were packed four to a car in four radio-equipped Ford sedans for the exercise. All went smoothly enough, with the four sedans changing places and streets as the rabbit led us through downtown Baltimore city.

The exercise wound out to old Roland Park, a neighborhood of winding, narrow lanes lined with big, old houses that had once been one of Baltimore's ritzy "summer-house" neighborhoods. The residents, of course, were still snooty and affluent.

As we went down one of the streets, the rabbit suddenly stopped in front of one home and a guy jumped out of the car and tossed something into a trash can sitting at the curb awaiting collection. The guy jumped back in the car and the rabbit took off.

Our driver was suddenly seized with lunacy, smashing the pedal to the metal, squealing wheels (big V8) and screeching to a halt at the subject can. Our comrade in the front passenger seat leaped from our car, grabbed the can and turned it upside down, spilling all of the odious contents (long before the plastic trash bag was invented) all over the sidewalk. He then began to paw through the mess, finding a Kodak film cartridge which he held aloft like Sherlock Holmes, crying out "Look at THIS!"

On a slope just above the sidewalk was a little gray-headed matron watering her lawn. She suddenly turned the hose on our compatriot before he could regain the front seat, doused him (and the rest of us, for the windows were all down) before we could speed off under the assault of language that would have made a Marine Gunny blush.

Needless to say, we didn't live that one down, and even after we all left Holabird months later, the adventure assumed a life of its own in the lurid lore of that institution.

Your post brought it all back. Thanks for the memory.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[NCHams]

Ask the government what they have to say. They will say no comment. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif I like that answer

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ Dec. 25 2005,10:29)]FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - '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.'

Presidents oath of office: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I'm sure someone can explain this to the neo conservatives so they might be able to understand...

kxq
So are you saying that the term "effects" covers photons and electrons streaming through public switched networks?

[KD7WHQ]

"Papers" included letters passed between individuals.
Hence, this covered mail. Screw with someone's mail and watch what happens next.

By extension, it covers electronic communcations as well.

NB; no ISP guarantees email as being truely private, and if you send it from work, well..

But yes, it has been priorly held that the fourth amendment applies, up to and including infrared surveilance..

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] ]Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.

Not that it means anything, but some of the judges that are in the secret FISA circuit are concerned about this revelation. Judges on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326.html) FISA is the term Rice used over and over a few weeks ago on Face the Nation. She said the monitering was within the FISA regulations. Well there are FISA judges who disagree.

I am trying to learn things as I read these postings over.

I guess since a Magistrate is not a Judge, then a Supreme Court Justice is not a Judge since it does not contain the term "Judge".

WZB is trying to determine what the definition of the word "is" is. Real Clintonian. I think we all know what we have that is intended to be private and what is not intended to be. Do you allow people to press their noses against the glass at your home to see what is going on inside? Unreasonable seems to be to a point where an issue can be made. Courts use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched:

Did the person actually expect some degree of privacy?

Is the person's expectation objectively reasonable -- that is, one that society is willing to recognize?

KFC is confused as to who "We the People" are. I believe they are Amuracuns. The folks from the US of A. Indeed, this is the issue where US of A'ers are being wiretapped. Some of you can care about the terrorists if you wish, it is a free country. US of A'ers are being wiretapped without a warrent, even by a Magistrate, and that is the issue. The Constitution (or "that G*d D**med piece of Paper" as Dubya puts it) does not say anything about US citizens speaking to foreigners being exempt from the amendment.

MIV wishes to call people names who don't support law breakers. Saying "This is nothing new" doesn't make it legal. Name calling is frowned upon in QRZ.com. He has supporters who follow his lead and talk about their legal rights from the grave. You battle cry must be "Give me more Government, but please please please don't kill me."

I think ILP says that we have to break the laws sometimes because they don't really make a whole lot of sense.

I really didn't read about all the garbage that MIV wrote about, but it was a good story.

4MY has a time with the demeanor of the postings. I do not see where ILP was being defensive. I do see where ILP came up with every line of his latest posting in this thread.

2I is trying to pick some kind of a fight, or make a point that needs a post that he can use to bolster his point. Maybe this one will do it, I hope.

Hope you all had a wonderful Christmas, Hannukah, or Kwanzaa, and your New year is better than all the other years put together.

N9XR

[n9yb]

Don't just pick on GWB.

Clinton did it. GHWB did it. RWR did it.


This is old stuff. It is just getting a new coat of partisan bickering.

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] ]Don't just pick on GWB.

Clinton did it. GHWB did it. RWR did it.


This is old stuff. It is just getting a new coat of partisan bickering.

So you are saying that we need to scrap the constitution? Law doesn't matter?

I do not see this as partisan bickering. Either it is against the law, or it isn't. GHWB sold missles to the enemy to be used against US soldiers. Does that make it legal? My point was that the judges in the FISA are concerned about the wiretaps. Why should they be concerned if "everybody's doing it"? "The questions are obvious," said U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah. "What have you been doing, and how might it affect the reliability and credibility of the information we're getting in our court?"

"On Monday, one of 10 FISA judges, federal Judge James Robertson, submitted his resignation -- in protest of the president's action, according to two sources familiar with his decision." Would you resign your post because "everybody's doing it?"

I can't believe the lack of outrage in this. Not many here care about the freedoms we have and have been paid for. This is so sad.

N9XR

[N4AUD]

N9XR, some magistrates are judges, it depends on the state you are in. I am not a judge and do not conduct trials. As I understand it, in Kentucky the magistrates are in charge of highway repairs, but I may have been misinformed about that. Just wanted to clarify that.

[N9XR]

OK, let me get this straight. We have four branches of government. Executive, Judicial, Legislative, and highway repair.

I believe the magistrates who issue warrants are supposed to be from the, I'll guess, Judicial branch. Do the magistrates in charge of road repairs issue warrants? If so, is that from an Aggregate Court?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

N9XR (I couldn't help myself. I apologize)

[N4AUD]

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Dec. 26 2005,13:34)]OK, let me get this straight. We have four branches of government. Executive, Judicial, Legislative, and highway repair.

I believe the magistrates who issue warrants are supposed to be from the, I'll guess, Judicial branch. Do the magistrates in charge of road repairs issue warrants? If so, is that from an Aggregate Court?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

N9XR (I couldn't help myself. I apologize)
Good one! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Maybe someone from Kentucky could clear that up.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Dec. 27 2005,12:01)]I can't believe the lack of outrage in this. Not many here care about the freedoms we have and have been paid for. This is so sad.
OK, I feel like I am now drowning in Bravo Sierra. A thousand intrusions into my privacy are encouraged by the same people who pretend outrage over a program that very possibly saved the Brooklyn Bridge. I suppose that now you want to sell me the Bridge?

Still, Bush is weirdly evasive on exactly why he felt he needed to authorize the so-called wiretapping. The most likely scenario that I have found can be read here. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007812.php)

[W3MIV]

As a former CI guy, I find all of this very worrisome.

I loved that the NYT now goes to press (after holding the story a year) because they are sure that they will not compromise anything that is not already in the public domain.

That is arrogant BS of a whole new order. They wouldn't have any idea of what they may or may not be compromising.

Contrary to what a lot of you may think or believe, the government has very little interest in intruding into your lives. Unless... you merit such intrusion by your actions.

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] ]Contrary to what a lot of you may think or believe, the government has very little interest in intruding into your lives. Unless... you merit such intrusion by your actions.

That's easy for you to say, but what do you mean by my actions? I look at it like all of the people in the administration are business people. They have a lot to gain from wiretapping on a personal level. They can recieve inside information related to business costs and strategies that will benefit any of their corporations. There is, according to what I see, nothing to stop them from getting this business information and transmitting this back to Bechtel, Halliburton, or the Carlyle Group. How can I trust anyone from that administration not to use this wiretapped information in their personal business? There is no way.

So, what do you mean by my actions? It sounds like my corporate actions is what you may be speaking of. We are talking about a man on the board of directors who sold out his shares in Harkin Oil when he found out that their value was dropping, netting him a big chunk of change. He did not report his sale until after the quarterly report. The man has already proven to be someone you cannot trust.

It is indeed Bush-it that NYT waited so long to release this report.

N9XR

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Dec. 27 2005,10:31)]2I is trying to pick some kind of a fight, or make a point that needs a post that he can use to bolster his point. Maybe this one will do it, I hope.
Actually, I am happy to "fight", but in that post I was genuinely wondering why the 4th applied to vibrating subatomic particles a continent away. WHQ seemed to have some knowledge as to why the courts have interpreted the 4th to extend in that manner.

Since we have the recently hard-fought right to use electronic encryption, I wish we would do so much more often. The FBI programs carnivore and omnivore, while apparently dead, illustrate the government's natural desire to snoop, and according to some stuff on the web, the only reason the FBI does not use those technologies is because they are using the same commercially available, data mining software that marketers use, but with keywords that are of interest to the FBI.

[AB8RU]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 26 2005,10:01)]Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ Dec. 25 2005,12:29)]I'm sure someone can explain this to the neo conservatives so they might be able to understand...

kxq
Please. #They're still having trouble with evolution, the concept of a majority and opening that pickle jar.
No Its the Banannas not pickles Evolutionists must have Banannas and the Monkey Business ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[K0RGR]

After lots of thought, I only have two real concerns with this affairs.

First, was congress really properly informed about this, and if they were informed, and if they thought it was rotten, did they have any recourse? At least one senator is making it look like he was informed, thought it stunk, but could not do anything about it or even discuss it with other members of Congress due to the secrecy involved. If so, were rights abused?

Second, the president contends that congress declared war after 9/11, essentially giving him full war powers, so he does not need to follow regulations like FISA. Did Congress mean to grant the president full emergency war powers on a scale similar to those given to Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor? If so, when did we start sending his political enemies off to the concentration camps? How many are already there?

I think if congress was actually briefed in a responsible, non-arrogant, no snow-job, way, this was probably entirely in the best interests of the country, and should be continued.

[KD7WHQ]

"A continent away," no. Toward residences and places of business, yes.

The infrared case was a situation where the officials scanned the premises with a deep infrared (heat) detector.
The method cost them the case, on the basis of the 4th amendment.

Scanning a neighborhood, county, or wider.. It isn't at an individual level. It would only come to bear when a specific house was targeted, as it is an individual's right.

Semantics aplenty when it comes to interpretations..

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] ]"A continent away," no. Toward residences and places of business, yes.

The infrared case was a situation where the officials scanned the premises with a deep infrared (heat) detector.
The method cost them the case, on the basis of the 4th amendment.

Scanning a neighborhood, county, or wider.. It isn't at an individual level. It would only come to bear when a specific house was targeted, as it is an individual's right.

Semantics aplenty when it comes to interpretations..

Thank you WHQ. The debate is whether Americans in America are being wiretapped, or otherwise losing their 4th amendment rights to Dubya without the warrant for the invasion of privacy. Plain and simple. This debate is not about whether it is on the Tiarra del Fuegoans, or the chimpanzees of Bora Bora. It is not about whether it has been done before as this is not a good defense for committing a crime. Indeed, we can use encryption, but to be honest, there are cypher groups in the intelligence agencies who can break them anyway. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT. Why is that too much to ask?

N9XR

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Dec. 28 2005,06:33)]Indeed, we can use encryption, but to be honest, there are cypher groups in the intelligence agencies who can break them anyway.
The Clinton administration tried to make so-called "strong encryption technology" illegal (at least for export) so they could easily snoop (at least on foreigners). They lost that battle. (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,33745,00.html)

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Dec. 28 2005,00:37)]I think if congress was actually briefed in a responsible, non-arrogant, no snow-job, way, this was probably entirely in the best interests of the country, and should be continued.
The trouble with this is that the Congress far too often in the past has proven itself (as a group) so utterly irresponsible with classified defense information that one might as well send the briefing directly to the NYT and cut out the few minutes lag before they get it from a leaking congressman-woman.

[n2nh]

I agree to the agreement that were previously agreed upon provided that they've agreed to the extent that a majority agrees.

Quote[/b] (AB8RU @ Dec. 27 2005,23:38)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 26 2005 @ 10:01)]Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ Dec. 25 2005,12:29)]I'm sure someone can explain this to the neo conservatives so they might be able to understand...

kxq
Please. They're still having trouble with evolution, the concept of a majority and opening that pickle jar.
No Its the Banannas not pickles Evolutionists must have Banannas and the Monkey Business ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
As Banana Boy would say, "Bananas? Yes we've got no bananas.." http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/banana.gif

[N9XR]

Well KXQ, it can't be done. The neo cons either don't understand that Dubya promised to uphold the constitution and stood there waving his hand at the camera lying to America, or they don't care. They think they can explain it away with Democrat Presidents, vibrating electrons, or they think that because he is in the oval office, he can do anything he wants. Even outlaw ham radio or, dare I say it, guns.

Dubya has spied on Americans without a warrant. He admits it. This is an impeachable offense that would be a slam dunk in any court. Many people on this board were in agreement with the execution of Tookie for killing 4 people, but when they have someone in their court that subverts the constitution and kills thousands, they clamor around this criminal. No set of values at all here.

Sorry KXQ.

N9XR

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Dec. 28 2005,06:33)]The debate is whether Americans in America are being wiretapped, or otherwise losing their 4th amendment rights
If you are suddenly sensitized to government snooping and monitoring -- Great!

Since the NSA system is directed against foreign-connected terrorist threats, it doesn't really amount to a hill of beans. However, there is massive daily government snooping that is directed against you and me. We need to get rid of it. Here are some government snoopings to think about:

Here in Alaska cops ask for proof of insurance on every random traffic stop. You must prove you are insured, on the spot, or you will be fined, insured or not.

Anywhere in the country you can start growing some plant in your basement and smoking it in a pipe. If they catch a whiff, the government will be there snooping and monitoring.

What happens every April 15th? I spend days pouring through financial mutinae to tell the government everything about me. I'll bet you open your kimono for the IRS, don't you?!

Try fermenting some vegetable or fruit juice and selling the product to your buddies. Then tell me about government snooping and monitoring.

Every week I am forced to go through the most minute inspection of all of my personal effects, including a body scan before I get in a vehicle to come to work. You would think they could save themselves a lot of effort by realizing I am no more a threat this week than I was last week. But no, they must snoop, probe, scan and sniff anew every week.

Because the DOT says that I am involved in transporting oil, I am forced to repeatedly submit to random urine tests. I have been peeing in bottles for years, and I have yet to transport a drop of oil. They scan my urine for whatever they feel like. Where is the blessed fourth amendment?! Where is the faux outrage of partisan leftists?!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[N9XR]

http://www.bartcop.com/osama-laughing.jpg

2i, everything you talk about is legislated, then signed off by a president or governer, and is under a court jurisdiction. Correct me if I am wrong.

If I am monitored in any way without a warrant, we are talking about something different. You may as well be talking about caribou giving birth around your premesis. It is a different subject. you know what bothers me a lot this time of the year is that I see and hear people say that Jesus was born in a manger although I cannot find in the Bible where it specifically really says he was born. It says that his mother dressed him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger. Are they saying that she wrapped him in swaddling clothes before he was born and gave birth to him in a manger? That does not seem reasonable. Why would and how did Mary end up in a feed trough to deliver a baby? I can understand her laying the baby in the feed trough after he was born because it would be like a crib as the Bible suggests happened. But I think 999 people out of 1000 believe that Jesus was born in a manger with no scripture to back it up. No one (except for me) will question them.

But what does that have to do with the 4th Amendment? We have a 4th amendment to address and say "There it is. That's what it says." Your problems with privacy are backed by courts. They were laws written by legislators. They can be re-written by legislators with your pushing them to do so.

But make no mistake. Without the constitution in tact, you will yearn for the day when you only had to do a few urine tests a week. We can either unite on this, or lose it all.

N9XR

[al2i]

The Fourth is already lost, and partisan politics just obscures that fact.