Nothing But Love :: golf blogger

The Emperor Has No Clothes

I did not see the President's speech on television last night. I heard a little bit of his news conference on NPR this morning, and I could not help but notice that the little under-the-breath laughter that betrays his ignorant arrogance came through loud and clear on the radio. Those that know and love him may characterize his demeanor as down-home and folksy, but I characterize it as stupid and arrogant.

I suppose that wiretapping international telephone calls and e-mails, even though the calls or e-mails originate in the United States could be construed as legal because the interception of those signals is not done on domestic turf. I have my opinion about that subject. The President's counsel has his own opinion. The President, well, ... he's pleased that Texas is in the Rose Bowl ... he is doing nothing more than what he did at Yale -- leading cheers. I also think the President is an "ends-justify-the-means" kind of guy, like Nixon, only not as bright as Nixon. Being a guy who believes that the ends justify the means, Bush believes that the wiretapping he has authorized for almost four years is legal.

This activity is, though, a pixel away from tapping domestic telephone calls and e-mails and other electronic communications, including cellular telephones without a warrant.

A lot of people thought, and still do think, that the late Justice William O. Douglas, one of my personal heroes, was the devil incarnate. He defined rights not enumerated in the First Amendment, but within the "penumbra" of those rights specifically named, and within which the right to privacy is found. President Bush would not be counted as an admirer of Justice Douglas. Douglas, in a domestic wiretap case involving organized crime back in 1967, wrote:

Neither the President nor the Attorney General is a magistrate. In matters where they believe national security may be involved they are not detached, disinterested, and neutral as a court or magistrate must be. Under the separation of powers created by the Constitution, the Executive Branch is not supposed to be neutral and disinterested. Rather it should vigorously investigate and prevent breaches of national security and prosecute those who violate the pertinent federal laws. The President and Attorney General are properly interested parties, cast in the role of adversary, in national security cases. They may even be the intended victims of subversive action. Since spies and saboteurs are as entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment as suspected gamblers like petitioner, I cannot agree that where spies and saboteurs are involved adequate protection of Fourth Amendment rights is assured when the President and Attorney General assume both the position of adversary-and-prosecutor and disinterested, neutral magistrate.

I see that the Fourth Amendment is still attached to the Constitution, but it is unfortunate that activist judges have eviscerated it over the years so that it really has no real meaning. After all, it is now legal for police to stop mothers driving without a seatbelt with their kids strapped into car seats, cite the mother for driving without a seatbelt. and cart her off to jail while the kids were still in the car. That did happen in Texas; so, our great and noble cheerleader's views on the Fourth Amendment are understandable. But the Supreme Court said that it was okay for the cop to do that. And there's the problem.

Posted by Bill at December 19, 2005 01:20 PM