The Republicans apparently don't like the First Amendment, so they are going to "fix" it with a flag burning amendment: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/15/flag.amendment.ap/index.html

They (lead by the great Republican Antonin Scalia) also don't think much of the Fourth Amendment: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061500730.html

On both issues, the Republicans have taken what I consider to be an anti-American position.

Scalia, with all due respect, is full of poop with his "originalism" schtick. His opinions have as many value judgments and public policy pronouncements as anyone else's. He's just too arrogant to realize it.

The following piece from the admittedly left wing www.washingtonmonthly.com is exactly right:

KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE....Southern California Edison has graciously decided to restore electrical power to my home, and upon rebooting my PC I note that the Supreme Court has decided to eviscerate the Bill of Rights a bit further today. In today's ruling in Hudson v. Michigan they decided that even if police violate the "knock and announce" rule for serving search warrants, they can still use the evidence they seize in court. Kieran Healy comments:

"By the by, Scalia, writing for the majority, is happy to set his originalism aside and argue that the growth of “public-interest law firms and lawyers who specialize in civil-rights grievances ... [and] the increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline ... [and] the increasing use of various forms of citizen review can enhance police accountability” all mean that the fourth amendment can be reinterpreted."

This is, of course, why I decline to take originalism seriously. Even its proponents pretty obviously understand that it's ridiculous to pretend that nothing has changed in the past 200 years, and they mostly use originalism as little more than intellectual cover for making the conservative rulings they want to make anyway. But when conservative rulings require that originalism be tossed overboard, they do so without apology. Some doctrine, eh?

And this is more anti-American than the Democrats trying to 'fix' the second amendment? Just more pandering to special interest groups that the politicos think can help swing the next elections. The Dems pimp to one group, the Reps whore to another. But so far they usually cancel each other out over time and the system keeps working, possibly because the voters are sometimes a little brighter than the politicians like to think.

__________________
John

2003 Firemist Red/grey leather SL 500
2015 Palladium Silver/black mbtex GLK 350
1987 Smoke Silver/burgundy mbtex 300E Sportline (SOLD)

Click to see 87 300E

I agree with all that, except I dont' recall any Democrats proposing Constitutional amendments.

I read this last night. I thought it was pretty scary too. I'd almost like it to happen to me, soon as douchbag officer a kicks open the door he gets a belly full of lead. Hopefully he had the warrant, and then the others cant prove any reason to be here and get it all next. The word I am sick of hearing is not originalism, but interpretation! The constitution is pretty cut and dry, at least to me. I dont get all of it, but this is very obviously off the mark. And then to justify it saying its ok because if they're wrong, just sue them

The negotiations among Demopublicans is like this: My abridgement of the Constitution is good, yours is bad. Let's compromise and do both!

Exactly, it wouldnt be so bad if "we the people" dug our heads out and stopped aligning with the crooks that share the same title.

Flag burning illegal? Along with Cuba, Iran, China? Can't think of where else it's illegal...

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

Good versus bad is in the eye of the beholder, but recent Republican attacks on the Constitution differ fundamentally from Democratic efforts to control guns. On gun control, the Democrats say that the 2nd Amendment permits regulation. If they go too far, there is a politically conservative judiciary these days that will be happy to enforce the 2nd Amendment. That disagreement is over what the Constitution says. The Republicans, on the other hand, say the Constitution is flawed and that they know how to fix it.

A perfect example of the way different people view their favorite parts of the constitution.

No, it is worse. A proposed amendment approach is just a politicians tool - posturing for your electorate, drawing a line in the sand to look different from your opponents, or a platform for gathering campaign contributions. If it gets beyond the pose-for-the-media phase it will be proposed to congress by an elected member of congress, and after being chewed over like a rope toy in a kennel (committee and sub-com actions/debate, letters from voters, pressure group input, editorials, talking heads, finger pointing and name calling) it will be voted down or moved on to the next levels. Eventually, if it makes it that far, it must face ratification by a majority of the states, where the chewing over starts up again. After 2-10 years it MAY be approved and only then does it become real. If it is truly offensive to a majority, a repeal process like the above will begin. Prohibition for example, 18th and 21st amendments.

A non-amendment approach involves a direct effort to cause change to an existing amendment, and may be started at multiple levels of government, by a politician, a lobby group, a political party, by non-elected government officials, etc.. It involves lobbying and contributions at a city, county, state, and federal level to develop laws, policies, lawsuits, and procedures to nullify or cast doubt on the intent of the amendment in question. When/if enough local laws or policies which question, abridge, or skew the original intent of the amendment can be accomplished, they are used to convince politicians or officials at the next levels that it represents the will of the people (who usually never got to vote on it). Eventually, if the timing looks right - the make up of the Supreme Court looks tilted in your favor - a hand picked test case is presented to the Supremes where a simple majority can then interpret the 'real' meaning, again without voter input. The second amendment and gun laws, pro and con, are examples, with legal approaches ranging from attempts to outlaw all private ownership (SF) to requirements for all heads of households to keep a gun in their residence (Kennesaw GA).

Both of these techniques can be used on any amendment. The first option requires that the majority of the voters be heard, while the second option means the majority of voters face a much more difficult task in being heard. It is analogous to being buried alive in tons of sand instead of being crushed by a boulder. (Or from the other viewpoint, riding up an escalator instead of climbing a cliff face.)

__________________
John

2003 Firemist Red/grey leather SL 500
2015 Palladium Silver/black mbtex GLK 350
1987 Smoke Silver/burgundy mbtex 300E Sportline (SOLD)

Click to see 87 300E

I disagree. The Republicans want to re-write the Constitution. They are right up front about that. Democrats say the Constitution is good as is, but disagree over what it says.

That's well said.

Even so, I wish Bill Frist would keep his hands off James Madison's work product.

That ox is sure getting gored big time....

Bot, you must find botany to be such a respite from politics.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

Don't know about Bot, but I find government politics to be an entertaining and light-hearted respite from university politics!

__________________
John

2003 Firemist Red/grey leather SL 500
2015 Palladium Silver/black mbtex GLK 350
1987 Smoke Silver/burgundy mbtex 300E Sportline (SOLD)

Click to see 87 300E

I have to agree with this Scalia's comment "that was then, this is now" is pretty indicative of the Conservative POV.

I share office space with a conservative judge and also have some pro tem time in muni court. My office mate and myself had a discussion yesterday about signing warrants in light of this case. The warrant has its own standard, but like anything else, there is discretion to be exercised. Would you want to sign a warrant and have a cop who is the father of 3 kick in some redneck's door, only to run the risk of having the guy cut in half with a shotgun? I can't believe law enforcement isn't more vocal about the inherent danger to the officer as a result of eviscerating the exclusionary rule. I also take issue with the Scalia's comment to the effect that cops are more professional now, so we don't need the exclusionary rule. I totally agree with Bryer that the reason cops are more professional now is BECAUSE of the exclusionary rule.

Oh yeah, you're still a loser