A note to the US Congress

[jhetley]

"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."


Any questions?

Comments

[wcg.livejournal.com]

I wonder how many of them would recognize the 4th amendment?

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

Considering most of them and most of the Supreme Court don't recognise the *2nd* amendment... probably not many would recognise most of the others either.

C.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

I got to thinking about this question. 'Way back in the Dreamtime, I had to memorize the Bill of Rights*. Got up in front of class, sixth or seventh grade, and recited it, beginning to end. Whole class did it. Most of Congress isn't any younger than me.

They *know* what they're doing.

Guess who's first up against the wall, when the revolution comes?

Republicans, Democrats, Rhinos, whatever. All of 'em.

*Also, the Preamble to the Constitution, Gettysburg Address, and an assortment of other trivia.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, I didn't have to memorize those documents. But I took upon myself the task of reading them all, and I can still quote swaths of the text.

My guess is that some future instantation of the Supreme Court will overturn this as unconstitutional, based on that very 4th amendment. But for now the telecoms have their arses covered.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

I think I'm just as disturbed by the appearance that most of the "Nay" votes were cast over immunity, the ass-covering, rather than the ravage to the Constitution.