Do We Really Need All of the Amendments to the Constitution?

It was a good part of a lifetime ago that Yul Brynner as "the King" in the play and movie "The King and I" pensively sang this lyric:

Shall I join with other nations in alliance?
If allies are weak, am I not best alone?
If allies are strong with power to protect me,
Might they not protect me out of all I own?

I am just thrilled that the latest FISA bill will allow the Telco's a "get out of jail free" card for past transgressions. That is just great, but for a bonus, in future, all the President needs to do to get the eavesdropping that he wants is just to ask for it as it will save us from the horrid deeds planned by the terrorists. WOW. And if people were to sue the Telco's for whatever, the courts are required to dismiss the action no matter how egregious the violation.

The following words are the now abandoned fourth amendment, and we are looking to delete if from further copies that we print of the Constitution in that it is no longer useful for the President or the Congress to pay attention to it any longer.

"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."

After all, why am I being so trivial about all of this? Why should I worry if the Feds monitor my phone calls? I have done nothing wrong so I should have nothing to fear,

Why shouldn't the cops have the right to search my house or my car if they choose? I have done nothing wrong so I should have nothing to fear,

Why shouldn't the DEA detain my friend Ed Lawson and rough up his person a "little." They are only trying to protect us.

Taking a few liberties with the King and I lyric:

Shall we join with other Presidents in violations?
If Presidents are weak, am I not best if left alone?
If the President is strong with power to protect me,
Might he not protect me out of all I own?

Every red blooded American should realize that the threats from "terrorists" could someday be sufficient for our country to eliminate the entire Constitution. It does just get in the way of the people who only want to protect us.

We should all remember that the recent Supreme Court Habeas Corpus ruling was only five to four and this scares me more then the terrorists.

The evil guys in our government would like to "protect us out of all we own."

The King might be happy with what is going on, but I am not!

I would also like to compliment those great journalistic news organizations of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and Fox for their extensive coverage of this trivial event in our nation's history.

Norman Horowitz
Guilty of Something Or Other
And Willing To Blame The Media Giants For Everything!

Comments

[AuntSally]

Hmm. One would think the ACLU will challenge the constitutionality of the law -- should it pass -- in the courts.

[LilyMaskew]

The government is "Just trying to protect us." Now who will protect us from the protecters?

[realpolitic]

Yes, ten amendments in the Bill of Rights is a nice round number. But Americans are always on the go now and very busy. Perhaps we should reduce our Bill of Rights to three. In this way, we can all remember them easier. I am sure Bush and conservatives would be delighted.

[Dap]

Dear Norman,

You have such quaint notions, this is the 21st Century... not the 18th Century. Awake to the brave New World. Stop being so Conservative. Agape.

[StinkyPete]

It's being done piecemeal. Take the least favorite amendment - the dreaded and somewhat embarrassing second. There is a bill HR 2074 and others like it

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:6:./temp/~c110ckBiGs::

"To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist."

*suspected terrorist* is the key.
Same with Habeas - those guys are merely suspects. The definition of terrorist is difficult to pin down - the notion of 'suspect' is completely obscure, I guess it means no or insufficient EVIDENCE to enable action.

They only need to set a precedent and the others will fall easily and quickly.

[BusGreg]

They'll have to pry the Bill of Rights from my dead hands, until then I intend to use each one of them!

[wheresthebeef]

Don't kid yourself for a minute. That's exactly what they'd be willing to do if they can't accomplish their ends any other way. These people are fascists. Period. Punto. The end.

[BusGreg]

I meant EXACTLY what I said! And the who;e sorry lot of THEM being fascists isn't anything new.

[Rule Of Law]

Just a question, and I mean it with the sincerest appreciation for the sacrifice of our veterans in the armed forces but; If the PC (politically correct) thing to do these days if we are truly liberal--whatever that means if Hillary is included in that camp along with Feinstein and Pelosi--is to want and end to the war(s) but "support the troops" then, when Bush or whatever Fascist sits in his place decides to declare the Constitution to be just a "godamned piece of paper" and trash all of our rights, Do you thing those brave men and women in uniform will support the Constitution they swore to uphold and the people of America it protects---Or will they fall obediently in line behind their Military-Industrial-Lobbyist leaders and murder us whole sale in the streets?

Just a question...