We need the ACLU

I have often been critical of the ACLU. I think they put too much energy into making sure we are not subjected to public prayer or see a public Christmas display and I think they generally have a liberal agenda. However, sometimes they are exactly right.

I think Hedy Weinberg, Executive Director of American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee is correct in her Tennessean editorail today when she says, "The federal government has the responsibility and power to enforce immigration laws, but it cannot do so by breaking the law and running roughshod over the Constitution." (link)

Too many conservatives who vow they love the constitution and are critical of a government that runs roughshod over the constitution are awfully selective about which parts of the constitution they are concerned about. They like the enumerated powers section, the Tenth Amendment, and Second Amendment, but they don't seem to care much for the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.

The First Amendment, they will argue, was not really intended to cover Muslims because the Muslim faith is not really a religion but an ideology so local governments should get to decide who gets to build a house of worship in their community.

Regarding the Fourth Amendment, many conservatives do not seem to mind that the government can demand, "show me your papers" or can conduct raids without search warrants or probable cause if the objective of the raid is national security or immigration control.

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, 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." This amendment is every bit as important as the second amendment or any other of our rights. If we accept that government can search our homes without warrants we may wake up and all of our freedoms are gone. We need defenders of the Constitution who will insure that government does not trample that right.

If Constitutional Conservative are going to be selective about which parts of the Constitution they really like, then we need the ACLU.

Top Stories

The pee-in-this-cup-please Tea Party Conservatives

Florida’s Governor Rick Scott has instituted a new drug testing policy and many tea party conservatives are cheering. People who say they believe in small government and who claim they love the constitution are cheering.

Florida’s new drug testing policy has two parts. All new hires for state jobs must pee in a cup as part of the job application process and once hired, they may at anytime be subject to a random drug test. The second part applies to welfare applicants and requires all adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that government-mandated drug testing is a "search" governed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The fourth amendment reads,  "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 requires that the government have "probable cause" before a search warrant is authorized.

Random drug testing of people is not people, “being secure in their persons."  It is a search without any suspicion of wrong doing.  Without any suspicion that one has done anything wrong, to require a person submit his body fluids for government inspection seems like a much greater offense to our liberties than say, being forced to purchase health insurance.  Many conservatives, as are many liberals, are very selective about which parts of the constitution they really like. Many tea party conservatives love the second amendment but just don’t care that much for the 1^st and 4^th.

Many conservatives embraced the“show-me-your-papers” bill in Arizona before it was amended. They supported the original version when it allowed police to demand papers of anyone who had “contact” with the police. Many conservatives also opposed the right of Muslims to build a mosque in Murfressboro, going as far as to argue the First Amendment did not apply to Muslims, since Islam is not really a religion. Now, many conservatives are cheering this new Florida drug testing law. 

Do not get me wrong.  I think welfare rolls should be drastically reduced.  I understand the frustration of seeing people rewarded for making poor decisions. I think we should pick up where welfare reform left off and continue the phasing out of welfare. I realize that drug and alcohol abuse and crime is widespread in many public housing projects and welfare communities. That, however does not justify, a major expansion of government and constitutional violations as being carried out by Governor Rick Scott.

Government expansion and ignoring the Constitution is a slippery slope.  If welfare applicants can be required to pee in a cup to apply for welfare assistance, you may be next.  The same logic that applies to recipients of welfare could be applied to recipients of other government hand-outs.  Applicants for subsidized student loans, for recipients of FEMA natural disaster grants, for unemployment compensation or Social Security may be next. If you accept drug screening for state job applicants and welfare recipients as reasonable, what is going to be your principled argument of why you should be exempt when they apply it to you?

If you support this kind of intrusive, police-state government, fine; just don’t hand me that line about how much you love limited government and the constitution.

Top Stories

Government agents can legally sneak onto your property and plant a tracking device.

Our Constitution rights are slip, slip, slipping away.

"Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway - and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements." (read more)

So ruled The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is the most liberal of the circuit courts. The ninth covers California and eight other western states. Hopefully this decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court and be reversed, but for now this is the law. The ruling stems from a 2007 case when Drug Enforcement Administration agents suspected an individual of growing marijuana and snuck onto his property in the dead of night and placed a GPS tracking device underneath the suspects Jeep parked in the driveway just a few feet from his home.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution 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, 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 ninth ruled that because the vehicle was in an area readily accessible that 4th Amendment protections did not apply. Think about that: If the owner would have had the car parked in a garage or had a gate, the placing of the device would have been illegal, but because it was readily accessible, the slipping onto the property and placing the tracking device was legal. So, poor people who do not live behind gated driveways or have garages have lesser rights than those who do.

In the last few years we have seen a steady erosion of our rights. Following the attack on 9-11, the administration of George W. Bush weakened our constitutional protections in the name of security and the administration of Barack Obama has accelerated that weakening of our rights in the name of health care reform and financial reform. Now the 9th Circuit Court has further eroded our constitutional rights in the name of combating marijuana.

Chief Judge Kozinski, a conservative justice appointed by President Ronald Reagan, dissented form the ruling saying, "1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last."

Top Stories