by elocs » Mon 18 Sep 2006, 23:45:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 'B')ush would give the same sorta "but but.." arguments for his "interpretation" as Clinton gave for his of the 2nd. It would be interesting to see how many liberals can accept that some people feel as strongly about the 2nd as they might feel about the 4th. Even more interesting to see how many would respect those others by not stomping on the 2nd just because they don't find it particularly relavent or important.
I'm personally happier having the 4th trampled than the 2nd trampled, but I'd much prefer it if they'd both get the respect they deserve.
The amendments to the Constitution are a set, not a buffet where you can pick or choose what you like and disregard others. It's childish to claim that since you believe Clinton did not uphold the Second Amendment as you think he should have, it should be ok for Bush to abridge the Fourth Amendment. That's the kind or arument you would expect to get from your kids.
For those unfamiliar with the Second and Fourth Amendments, here they are:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
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.
Since it is apparently so easy to explain away the "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" clause of the Second Amendment I suppose it is just as simple a matter to explain away the entire Fourth Amendment. Don't kid yourself. Once they get the Fourth Amendment they will be back for the Second Amendment and they will be more than willing and happy to pry your gun from your cold, dead hands.