The first amendment to our Constitution begins as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
That means, children, that our government can't pass any law about religion one way or another, even if lots of very loud, very ignorant people want it to. And that's what sane people mean when they talk about a separation of church and state.
In the Fourth Amendment, the founders wrote:
"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 even if Mr. Justice Scalia says otherwise, what that plainly says is that our government can't just go snooping around in our business without a really good reason, which must be cleared by the judicial branch of government. That means the courts, kids. Judges with big black cloaks and wooden gavels. They, not the President or anyone who works for him, can decide when anyone may legally watch us without our knowledge. And watching us without our knowledge, that violates our privacy, right? I mean, what's private but the things we do when we don't think anyone is watching or listening? Anything other than following what the Constitution specifically says subverts the Constitution and should be grounds for firing anyone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, like Mr. President Bush. This President, kids, is a disgrace the United States of America because he operates only in his own narrow self-interest, with no concern at all for what might be helpful or good or right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
No, it means that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".
I'll use the text of the constitution in my explanation, you go ahead and use what you WANT it to say.
The Fourth Amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
It does not say "there is a right to abortion".
Mister Suss - simply saying it doesn't make it true, and WANTING it to be true doesn't make it true, either.
Sorry, pal.
it also doesn't say, "the president may decide whether or not he is allowed to spy on his own people," but i'll bet you don't mind the nsa program, do you?
Changing the subject....does that mean you surrender?
NSA and FISA constitutional issues are above my head, yes it's logical to let him do it.
You're against it because you hate him.
Not exactly a constitutional crisis.
"You're against him because you hate him."
please give it some thought, and try to think of REASONS why i might be against him and hate him. which i am and do. i'd actually be fascinated to see what you think my motivation are on those counts.
I am more than willing to do that, but let's do it on the next thread, shall we?
You are against NSA spying on terrorists because you see it as a way to weaken Bush. What about the logical arguments for spying on terrorists who call the US?
See, many liberals are so angry at Bush and KKKarl Rove that they don't let facts get in the way of their feelings.
That's where you are now.
You have every right to hate him, but when you let that hatred get in the way of all logical thought & reasoning, I'll call you on it every time.
Post a Comment