hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
If you can read these words, really read them, and not get a lump in your throat…
Happy Independence Day to you too BiW. The only thing that rivals this document is the journey we have been on toward a more perfect union ever since it was written.
Just as men disagreed back then on the way forward, we disagree today. Yet with the passage of time, our nation always ends up better than it was before.
I say this without a hint of sarcasm …. it almost does make one believe in divine inspiration.
Enjoy the burgers, hot dogs and fireworks!
It is my firm belief (and I have no “factual data” in which to back it up) the originators of this document (and to some extent, the Constitution as well) were divinely inspired.
It is my considered opinion that the only other document (aside from the Constitution) which comes close to being as perfect a bit of prose as was ever written, was “The Gettysburg Address”.
I can not think of a single other document or speech which even comes close to any of the three listed above. Can you?
How very far we have fallen not only in our culture, our society, but intellectually as well. And to top it all off, a great many in this country would have us turn a deaf ear to these masterpieces of the human spirit, heart, and intellect. (Let alone ignoring the possibility the gentle hand of the creator, guided the minds and quills of those who penned same.)
Still, there are those of us who honor, respect, and remember. Remember the men, the words, the actions and deeds which bring us to where we are now.
To those who swore an oath to our nations charter, “to protect and defend”, be it public office, public service, or wearing the uniform, if you did just that, honored your oath, than thank you.
And thank you BiW, for posting this, on our nations birthday.
I can think of one that would rival, and one that would exceed the prose, beauty and wisdom of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
One would be the Magna Carta, which I always understood as to set the precedence of the constitutional rule of law.
The other is the Bible in which nothing comes remotely close in my opinion in endearing divine wisdom, godly influence, moral law, and beauty, being that I have no doubt it inspired by the Creator who grants us our unalienable rights.
And contrary to the opinions of liberal scholars, those who attempt to pervert American history, and the unbelievers of the ACLU, I believe most of our Founding Fathers would have agreed.
Happy Birthday America – may we do you proud, starting in November.
a great many in this country would have us turn a deaf ear to these masterpieces of the human spirit, heart, and intellect.
Really? I wasn’t aware of that. Please elaborate.
For at least the past 10 years or so, every July 4 airing of NPR’s Morning Edition has included a full reading of the Declaration of Independence by the familiar voices of some of the NPR on-air reporters.
It is indeed a moving and inspiring document.
Since this is America, Tex has every right to believe that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are divinely inspired.
But no God that I can imagine would have thought up the three-fifths compromise. Or the Electoral College – especially in its original form.
And just think – God inspired / dictated the Declaration of Independence through Thomas Jefferson, who wasn’t even a Christian. God does indeed work in mysterious ways!
Since this is America, Tex has every right to believe that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are divinely inspired.
But no God that I can imagine would have thought up the three-fifths compromise. Or the Electoral College – especially in its original form.
Divine inspiration and divine authorship are not the same.
When we got home this afternoon, my wife turned on the television. 1776 was on. It was at the point when Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson were all struggling with the idea of compromising the anti-slavery language. Adams was clearly exorcised about it, and rightfully concerned what posterity would believe about them if they compromised on it.
My wife said to me “They didn’t really have a choice, did they?”
I looked at her, and I said, “When I reflect on the various occaisions throughout those years where those men themselves believed that divine providence touched events around them, I think that had they kept faith, a path would have been made.”
However, they were only human, and it doesn’t strike me as unusual that men could leave a human stain upon divine inspiration. The only perfect man died nailed to a tree, and however intelligent, brave, and inspiring these men might have been, and no matter how much they believed in God (with or without the divinity of Christ, his son), they were only human. However tragic that it is that a nation was birthed in the seed of a terrible future conflict, I will ALWAYS chose that it over the alternatives.
And just think – God inspired / dictated the Declaration of Independence through Thomas Jefferson, who wasn’t even a Christian. God does indeed work in mysterious ways!
And just think – All those references to God, A Supreme Judge, Divine Providence in the Charter of this nation from the same man who wrote the words that Hugo Black and innumerable liberals and humanists would have us believe required a strict, ridiculous separation between even the mention of religion and the free exercise thereof at public events where government is present.
Silly man. Didn’t he know? If sure if he were to author it today, the ACLU would be leading the charge against the men who signed it for their impermissible mixing of church and state.
Odd that the same man who penned the Declaration of Independence coined the phrase “wall of separation between church and state.”
BIC, what in the Declaration besides references to a “Creator,” “Supreme Judge,” or “Divine Providence” would you consider to part of the Law of the Land?
Was it the “original intent” of the Founders that the Declaration be considered to have equal standing to the Constitution?
Whether or not the ACLU believes that the Constitution is divinely inspired, no one believes more strongly than the ACLU in the Constitution itself.
Rather than merely paying lip service to the Constitution while ignoring what it actually SAYS, the ACLU attempts to require that the government actually OBEY the Constitution.
Even when that isn’t convenient.
ESPECIALLY when that isn’t convenient.
The Constitution is only one piece of the puzzle.
If you only have the Constitution, then you only have the bylaws.
When you add the DoI, you have the charter, which informs the entire endeavor, including the parts that groups like the ACLU would like to pretend didn’t happen, or don’t matter.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
That sounds like the Republican Party of 2010.
While my main criticism of the Republicans is that while Democrats want to destroy us in large strokes, the Republicans would rather do it in small increments, at least the Republicans still pay lipservice to the idea that the public good is best decided by the public itself, rather than a few hundred autocrats insulated in the feverswamp on the Potomac.
Graychin is so intellectually dishonest and poorly read, he’s hardly worth engaging anymore. It would not surprise me in the least that Graychin a former attorney and upstanding member of the ACLU. He reads like one, sounds like one, writes like one, thinks like one. You don’t come to his conclusions without an intense hatred of pure religion or public acknowledgment of a Creator, more specifically toward Christianity – the only religion that Graychin has demonstrated criticism and hostility. In fact, Graychin has gone out of his way to defend Islam, while renouncing the sins of Christianity since his arrival here.
However, if Graychin knew the Bible like he tells us he does, he would realize that all governments are established by God under the authority of God, for good and for evil.
And yes Graychin, I do believe the Constitution like the Magna Carta divinely inspired – those who penned the latter saying as much.
The letter always referenced by nihilists like Graychin, sent to the congregants and their leaders of the Danbury Baptist Church, was assurance that there would be no repeat of King George. A simple read, the letter concludes with the following statement: I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Whether Jefferson a believer or not which is still open to debate, he was raised as an Anglican. Jefferson obviously possessed a respect for the Christian faith not held by Graychin and his beloved ACLU. This is well documented fact as evidence by Jefferson’s assistance for worship – including allowance of the Congressional Building as the largest public house of worship during his term as President.
A full 145 years passed before the letter, a weapon of the Left about “a wall of separation of church and state” was used as a club by the SCOTUS to adopt clear hostility to any form of public acknowledgment of Christianity’s clear heritage in the formation and creation of this nation. Some of the ACLU’s “greatest constitutional victories” have included the exclusion of the removal of crosses from state seals – seals that predated the ACLU by some 100 years.
Here is a demonstration of Graychin’s historical ignorance – both biblical and American.
Graychin, you as a scholar of the Bible (cough, cough), I remind you that God has throughout human history used non believers to do great things to build His Kingdom. How little you remember of biblical history. Can I remind you Cyrus of Persia made the rebuilding of the second Jewish Temple possible, then Herod the Great renovated the Temple in 20 B.C.?
Other than a clear indication to attempt to agitate, I am not sure what purpose you serve. Perhaps it is God’s way of using the lost to keep us believers on our toes and not allow apathy to set in.
Odd that the same man who penned the Declaration of Independence coined the phrase “wall of separation between church and state.”
Not so much. Tex has already described for you what the letter to the Danbury Baptists was already about. Jefferson’s contribution to Virginia’s constitution, and by extention, the Federal Constitution came from his concern about sectarianism, and sects being offical state religions (as they were in the various colonies at the time just prior to the revolution, and as many of them remained, long after the ratification of the Federal Constitution.
It was not the hostility to religion or Christianity that the isolated phrase “wall of separation between church and state” implies. We know this from his own writings and how he set up the University of Virginia.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=21076
It is a far cry from the “secular” university claimed by some “scholars” today.
(Do be sure to carefully read all the footnotes.)
Then there is this, which makes it clear that Jefferson’s conviction in God being the source of man’s rights, as if such a thing was necessary:
“God who gave us life, gave us liberty. Can the liberty of a nation be secure where we have removed a conviction that these liberties are a gift from God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just. That His justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between mster and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the Book of than that these people are to be free.”
BIC, what in the Declaration besides references to a “Creator,” “Supreme Judge,” or “Divine Providence” would you consider to part of the Law of the Land?
There are a few components to deal with, such as the unalienable rights of man granted to him by his creator. A few of these were enumerated in the body of the document, but not all of them.
However, there is the little matter of it being a charter, and in fact being a charter like none other in the world:
http://threesurethingsoflife.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/the-declaratory-charter-of-our-rights/
And even if you want to ignore the obvious, and take a wholly secular view, there is this:
Was it the “original intent” of the Founders that the Declaration be considered to have equal standing to the Constitution?
You might want to be more precise with your terms. Founders more properly refers to those who were in Congress at Philadelpia in 1776, and those who fought in the Revolution, like George Washington. Framers would be those who gathered in Philadelphia to meet and debate the drafting of the document that would become the Constitution.
Unlike you, they understood the concept of a charter. That charter made possible the previous government under the Articles of Confederation, which did not meet the aims set forth under the Declaration, which lead to the call to fix its deficiencies, which were fixed by the Constitution.
The two documents are not on equal footing. There would be no Constitution without the Declaration, which defines the limits of government and recognizes man’s sovereign and the rights He granted to man. The Framers considered these rights and the authority that granted them to be obvious, which is why they initially failed to set forth limitations of government encroachment on them as set forth in the Bill of Rights. The Declaration is higher law, not equal or subject to the Constitution.
Maybe a review of what ACLU is actually about would be good for graychin:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6145
Graychin, you as a scholar of the Bible (cough, cough), I remind you that God has throughout human history used non believers to do great things to build His Kingdom. How little you remember of biblical history. Can I remind you Cyrus of Persia made the rebuilding of the second Jewish Temple possible, then Herod the Great renovated the Temple in 20 B.C.?
This is true. Is God trying to tell us something by passing over his proud followers and using “unbelievers” to do his work?
Perhaps he is telling us that those who claim to have the only truth – don’t?
clintbird, it looks like the author of your link is unhappy with the ACLU for its opposition to some provisions of the “Patriot” Act.
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.
The ACLU’s position is that the Fourth Amendment means what it says, and that the government should obey it ALL of the time – not just when it is convenient to do so.
It is patriotic to resist the pants-wetting “patriots” who foisted the “Patriot” Act on the American People.
What about the Tenth, the Second, or the other eight ammendments?
You’ll create something that doesn’t exist- seperation of church and state- but completely choose to ignore those ammendments that restrict your power grab.
The Declaration is higher law, not equal or subject to the Constitution.
Oh my…..
Is this why you are saying that we may ignore the plain wording of the Constitution when we perceive they do not measure up to the high standard set by the Declaration?
Behold the future of you and your arrogant leader…King Obama.
12:21-24
On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.” Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.
But the word of God continued to increase and spread.
Is this why you are saying that we may ignore the plain wording of the Constitution when we perceive they do not measure up to the high standard set by the Declaration?
I said this when?
The ACLU’s position is that the Fourth Amendment means what it says, and that the government should obey it ALL of the time – not just when it is convenient to do so.
It is patriotic to resist the pants-wetting “patriots” who foisted the “Patriot” Act on the American People.
Which acts committed under the Patriot Act (affirmed by President Obama) are you complaining of, specifically?
BiW, any chance we will get your legal analysis of US vs. AZ?
Not for a while yet. I have some reading to do.
However, the Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road has some pretty good thoughts on it this morning: http://www.eternityroad.info/index.php/weblog/comments/4341/
Which acts committed under the Patriot Act (affirmed by President Obama) are you complaining of, specifically?
Let’s start with warrantless and suspicion-less dragnet collection of U.S. residents’ international telephone calls and e-mails.
Yes, Obama signed a renewal of the “Patriot” Act. So what? Is that supposed to make it right?
Just out of curiosity, did you seethe with the same righteous indignance over the NSA doing the same thing with Echelon during the Clinton Administration?
And not that I am defending it, but is it your contention that the terrorists have a right of privacy in their communications with people here in the US?
“Is this why you are saying that we may ignore the plain wording of the Constitution when we perceive they do not measure up to the high standard set by the Declaration?”
I said this when?
I was referring to your sophistry about use of the word “persons” in the Fourteenth Amendment.
I was referring to your sophistry about use of the word “persons” in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Then it is you who is engaging is sophistry.
What I said on the matter was based on grammar, the actions of the United States government, and nearly a century of legal precedent prior to Justices nearly a century removed from the enactment suddenly “discovering” that before they brought their wisdom and mystical jurisprudential divination to the Court, that their predecessors and other branches of the government were actually interpreting it incorrectly. I made no reference at all to the Declaration of Independence, nor was there any need to make such reference.
Your aguments become even less persuasive when you base them on things I didn’t say.
And not that I am defending it, but is it your contention that the terrorists have a right of privacy in their communications with people here in the US?
Counselor, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for even asking such a stupid and argumentative question. All that I am contending is that we can, and should, combat terrorism without abandoning the Constitution in order to defend it.
Just out of curiosity, did you seethe with the same righteous indignance over the NSA doing the same thing with Echelon during the Clinton Administration?
Yes, definitely. And I seethe with indignation right now that Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress haven’t put an end to this crap. I’m an ACLU-admirer. Remember?
(Your arguments of “the Democrats do it too” are irrelevant. Wrong is wrong.)
Counselor, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for even asking such a stupid and argumentative question. All that I am contending is that we can, and should, combat terrorism without abandoning the Constitution in order to defend it.
Attorneys ask argumentative questions. There is nothing stupid about it. I want to clarify the metes and bounds of your contention. I get that you believe that listening in on an American’s conversation without a warrant is wrong. Knowing what I do about warrants, I can understand the contention that using information obtained without a warrant in a criminal prosecution will not stand…every 1L understands the “fruit of a poisonous tree” argument. What I want to know this : Is there a right of privacy that protects communications made to Americans by people who are not Americans and who are conspiring to attack our nation, our people, and our interests? And if your answer is “yes” and there is no criminal prosecution coming from such intercepts, what damages are appropriate?
(Your arguments of “the Democrats do it too” are irrelevant. Wrong is wrong.)
I made no such argument. I merely pointed out that the Chicago Messiah™ apparently doesn’t share your outrage.
(Your arguments of “the Democrats do it too” are irrelevant. Wrong is wrong.)
I made no such argument. I merely pointed out that the Chicago Messiah™ apparently doesn’t share your outrage.
Double-talk like that is what gives lawyers a bad name.
Chin, if I argue with you, you’ll know.
Damages? Who said anything about damages? All that I ask is that the people who supposedly enforce the law follow it themselves. Our liberty is in grave danger when law enforcement places itself above the law.
Carving out exceptions to the Bill of Rights under the Real Bush Doctrine (“We’re at War, you know”), sadly continuing under the Obama Administration as you were kind enough to point out, undermines the whole of the Constitution.
I WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION 100% OF THE TIME, NOT JUST WHEN THEY FIND IT CONVENIENT.
If government officials get in the habit of ignoring the Constitution whenever it suits them, and we citizens become tolerant of it, then the profound words with which you began this thread become nothing but scratches on an old yellow piece of parchment that aren’t even legible – or remembered.
*claps*
Nice speech.
I’m not sure that you have really answered the most important question, that being “What I want to know this : Is there a right of privacy that protects communications made to Americans by people who are not Americans and who are conspiring to attack our nation, our people, and our interests?”
So, graychin, who owns the wires and switches outside of America that these international phone calls go through? What country are they located in? What are the three most logical routes for a call that goes from New York City to Dubai? You don’t know, and neither do I. All “reasonable expectations of privacy” are gone the moment a call leaves our borders. (All these points apply to calls within the U.S. as well – I would argue that NO phone call has a reasonable expectation of privacy, but most people would wrongly assume otherwise.) I believe our goverment has the right (and even the mandate) to monitor communications crossing our borders. Why do you assume our laws protect and/or apply to other people and countries?
Is there a right of privacy that protects communications made to Americans by people who are not Americans and who are conspiring to attack our nation, our people, and our interests?”
Thank you for rephrasing, counselor. This is a question that can actually be answered. Much better without the loading and argumentation. Most of it anyway.
Of course there is no special right to privacy for terrorists, any more than there is a special right to privacy for persons engaged in any other criminal enterprise. The issue is not their rights – the issue is the right to privacy of every other American who is guilty of nothing but trying to live his life peacefully and legally.
I believe that we can – and should – combat both crime and terrorism within the confines of the 4th Amendment:
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.
If we only follow the Constitution when the government finds it convenient to do so, then the whole point of the Bill of Rights is lost.
Vacuuming up every electronic communication without judicial oversight (for example) clearly violates the 4th Amendment, even though in 1789 no Founding Father could even imagine email. And BIC – I don’t mean to re-start an earlier conversation, but I’m guessing that you and I have a different interpretation of who “the people” are when referred to in the 4th Amendment.
agiledog said: “I would argue that NO phone call has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
And he’s probably right because of past government abuses with unauthorized, warrantless eavesdropping. But just because the government has stolen our expectation of privacy does not mean that we should sit by quietly and allow them to keep it.