My point being that I disagree with your opinion that this is in violation of the 4th Amendment.
My point has always been that the 4th Amendment doesn't require a warrant, and allows searches and seizures so long as they have been deemed reasonable. And that should Congress pass a law that clearly gives law enforcement a certain power, then how could you argue that the search is unreasonable. First you must find something in the law that is specifically forbidden by the Constitution. No where does the constitution claim that a warrant is needed, it does claim what is needed to obtain a warrant, but in my opinion it gives officers the ability to act when there may not be enough time to acquire a warrant. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 1:37 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: [politics] nobody else seems to be concerned > > ok. So if you are correct about that it would seem that Clinton may have > violated the civil liberties of one person whom he correctly suspected of > being a spy. Can we let go of that and take a look at the wholesale > violations of the fourth amendment that seem to currently be taking place? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:189487 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
