Sign on for the Bill of Rights

posted by John Nichols on 06/26/2008 @ 08:21am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Newsvine
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (42)

Subscribe Now

After the Patriot Act became law, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) began a national campaign to get cities, counties and states to stand up for the Constitution.

Thanks to the determined efforts of this small but remarkably effective group, more than 400 communities and eight states have passed resolutions declaring their support for restoring protections guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.

The BORDC is still fighting the good fight. This week, the Massachusetts-based group i sounding the alarm against congressional moves to undermine 4th amendment privacy rights.

But the BORDC is not satisfied to simply play defense.

"At BORDC, we know many of our subscribers are outraged at the number of times their legislators have given in to fear mongering and supported freedom-robbing legislation because they believe voters are willing to give up their freedoms for a promise (a hollow promise!) of greater security," BORDC director Nancy Talanian and her colleagues explain.

"Responding to Congress's ongoing unconstitutional actions can often feel tiring and ineffective. Join the People's Campaign for the Constitution so that together the grassroots can set our government's agenda and hold our government accountable to the constitutional principles upon which it was founded."

The People's Campaign for the Constitution seeks to bring together all groups and individuals -- right and left, Republican and Democrat, Libertarian and Green, independent and partisan -- who are concerned about renewing the rule of law to a country where it has been severely threatened by executive arrogance and legislative lethargy. "Fighting against one violation at a time fragments our movement," the BORDC says. "It is time to unite to face the common source of these problems."

Something of a national debut will come July 4, when Bill of Rights Defense Committee plans to purchase a half-page advertisement in the New York Times to sound the call for Constitutional renewal. I've signed on and I hope that readers of The Nation will join in this essential effort to raise the profile of our struggle to renew civil liberties in a time of warrantless wiretapping, torture, signing statements and all the other evidences of kingly arrogance in the executive branch of what is supposed to be a republic.

To learn more about how you can support this new declaration of faith in America's founding principles, visit the committee's Web site and sign on for the Constitution.

Comments (42)

And now the inevitable Usual Suspects (our friends on the Right) telling us that...

(A) "There have been no violations of Constitutional rights for citizens!!!!"

and (B) (and contradictory) "We must give up some of these rights or the terrorists will kill us!!!!"

Posted by Mask at 06/26/2008 @ 08:44am
I am more than happy to sign up and renew the Constitution.

Based on your writings above and your support for the First Admendment, I am confident you will support with the same vigor the proposal floating in the House to remove from consideration the so-named "Fairness Doctrine" that will stifle free speech.

Right??

Posted by Chilly Willy at 06/26/2008 @ 10:06am
IN the wake of the FISA fiasco passed by the House, here is a timely topic indeed.

Thanks, John.

And I can't help but wonder what, if anything, we'll be hearing from our Constitutional scholar presidential candidate, Barack Obama, on this movement for Constitutional renewal.

One thing is certain though --particularly since Obama's June 3 clinching of the Democratic nomination. His stock has plummeted in the eyes of a multitude of progressives, mine included.

The next four months will be critical ones for progressives to speak up with as unified a voice as possible in order to, hopefully, avert another limp fish run ala John Kerry this fall.

It's my sincere wish that The Nation will be a sonorous voice in the chorus.

In any case, there can be little doubt that our Constitutional Republic is in grave danger, and the oft heard ongoing calls to just "trust Obama" and wait until next January to press our case are naïve at best, and more accurately, politically incompetent.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/26/2008 @ 10:14am
By the way, the Capitol switchboard number is:

(202)224-3121

There is still time to call your Senators and urge them to deep six the FISA bill --H.R. 6304.

Please take a couple of minutes to do so.

Thank you,

~B

Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/26/2008 @ 10:32am
Rejoice John!!! Today the Supremes upheld the Second Ammendment. Now, let's try going after those who want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Try seeing the glass as half-full.

Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/26/2008 @ 11:21am
I went to sign the declaration and apparently I cannot ad my name unless I donate at least $25...

Which I'm unable to do at this time, but would still like to sign...what gives?

My ability to sign this important document should not depend on giving money!

Posted by wagonjak at 06/26/2008 @ 11:48am
Wagonjak,

I hear ya' dude --I thought that their online set-up was a bit poorly designed.

I'd suggest going through the process and checking the radio button for payment by check, and then sending off your info.

If you end up paying less than the supposedly required $25 it's your decision.

Regardless, I think this is a fantastic and critically important campaign.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/26/2008 @ 12:09pm
It's ironic that Nichols should post this today, when the latest attack by the left on our Constitution, this time on the Second Amendment, was turned back by a bare majority of the Supreme Court. And it comes just a day after Nancy Pelosi re-affirmed her ardent desire to eviscerate the First Amendment by putting the government in charge of regulating content on the airwaves.

Yes, John, there is a need to protect the Constitution, unfortunately, it is mostly from you and your ilk.

Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2008 @ 12:12pm
I am more than happy to sign up and renew the Constitution.

Based on your writings above and your support for the First Admendment, I am confident you will support with the same vigor the proposal floating in the House to remove from consideration the so-named "Fairness Doctrine" that will stifle free speech.

Right??

Posted by Chilly Willy

I would love to sign a petition to kill the "Fairness Doctrine"...

...any time the govt gets "fair" with some group, another group gets screwed...

Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/26/2008 @ 12:21pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/26/2008 @ 12:21pm

Nancy Pelosi has already pledged to prevent that measure from coming to a vote. As usual, that's Democrat with a large D, you understand, not a small 'd'.

Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2008 @ 12:24pm
Gee, you know based on the spurious 'rationale' spewed by so many of the kool-aid drinkers as justification for the impeachment of George Bush, every lawmaker who created gun control laws is now a criminal, based on the Supreme Court's decision, since those laws are now illegal. Oh boy, who should we start with?

Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2008 @ 12:27pm
Ponti-SCOTUS did not protect the second amendment today from the left.They,simply,gave their opinion as to what is meant by the second amendment since it was not clearly written.My conservative right wing dad disagrees with the decision made by SCOTUS as it pertains to the second amendment,but I agree with it.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/26/2008 @ 12:29pm
Ponti-SCOTUS did not rule that gun control advocates and lawmakers are now considered to be criminals.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/26/2008 @ 12:31pm
Yes, John, there is a need to protect the Constitution, unfortunately, it is mostly from you and your ilk.

Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2008 @ 12:12pm

Ahh the amount of partisan BS is amazing. Everyone always wants to make the other side the demon. Republicans make the Patriot Act Demo's make the Fairness act. Which is worse, who knows? Of course Republicans and Demo's will jump at the chance to say the other does it more like the post above saying that DEMO'S ALWAYS GUT THE CONSTITUTION and Republicans are always innocent.... The degree of blind devotion to ones party is amazing.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 12:34pm
I would love to sign a petition to kill the "Fairness Doctrine"...

...any time the govt gets "fair" with some group, another group gets screwed...

Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/26/2008 @ 12:21pm

I find it odd JOM that a libertarian like yourself is not against the Patriot Act. For are all the vociferating you do about how everyone is trying to take away your rights by taxing you and that we need to return this power to the states and that we are being Unconstitutional you ignore a bill that gives the government the right to walk into your house any time they want for whatever reason they want.... Odd. I see another person devoted to their party but ignoring major chunks of their supposed ideology.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 12:36pm
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/26/2008 @ 11:21am

The SC didn't have much choice because citizen's have a Constitutional right to bear arms as provided in the 2nd Amendment. I'm surprised that the vote wasn't unanimous. Having said that, note that the SC did make reference to the problem of gun violence and left it up to the states to interpret their own handling of the concealed weapon issue.

As for the 'Fairness Doctrine', I am one who was previously for installing some sort of renewal of that legislation. My reasoning was based on the fact that the rightwing controls the airwaves and it is a disadvantage to the opposition.

However, now that I see what abject failures people like Limbaugh and Hannity are, (despite their riches), as reflected in the movement of the country towards the democratic agenda, I don't think a fairness doctrine rewnal is necessary after all.

Just let the wingnuts keep blabering away. The people have tuned them out it seems, or like me just lissten to see what their side is saying or just for thr entertainment value. Limbaugh can be entertaining in a pathetic sort of way.

Posted by frankgrits at 06/26/2008 @ 12:36pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/26/2008 @ 12:36pm

Gee, FRANK, so you're all in favor of free speech, so long as you think nobody's listening? Interesting take.

Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2008 @ 12:57pm
Not a peep out either of the major party candidates on expanded Executive power except Obama stating his support for the latest FISA bill because it limits some of that claimed power. These are constitutional questions too. Will the MSM allow the debate, will the candidates answer? It stands at the root of all critism of our present Administration. Also, just because the "Patriot Act" passed, doesn't make it Constitutionally valid. Hopefully the vail of secrecy that now envolopes the Executive can be lifted with next administration and these questions can be addressed by the Supreme Court. And, another avenue of redress of the Patriot act.

Posted by zhongman at 06/26/2008 @ 1:06pm
<i>Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 12:36pm </i>

Where in the Patriot Act, exactly, is the vast power you speak of to "walk in your house anytime they want for whatever reason they want"?

Posted by Thrawn at 06/26/2008 @ 1:09pm
Posted by zhongman at 06/26/2008 @ 1:06pm

"Also, just because the "Patriot Act" passed, doesn't make it Constitutionally valid."

In the absence of a successful Supreme Court challenge it does.

Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2008 @ 1:09pm
Where in the Patriot Act, exactly, is the vast power you speak of to "walk in your house anytime they want for whatever reason they want"?

Posted by Thrawn at 06/26/2008 @ 1:09pm

"The so-called "sneak and peek" law allowed for delayed notification of the execution of search warrants. The period before which the FBI must notify the recipients of the order was unspecified in the Act -- the FBI field manual says that it is a "flexible standard"[49] -- and it may be extended at the court's discretion.[50] These sneak and peek provisions were struck down by judge Ann Aiken on September 26, 2007 after a Portland attorney, Brandon Mayfield was wrongly jailed because of the searches. The court found the searches to violate the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution"

I am looking for the actual portion of the bill that addresses it so I can post it but here is some information about it Thrawn.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 1:16pm
>>>In any case, there can be little doubt that our Constitutional Republic is in grave danger, and the oft heard ongoing calls to just "trust Obama" and wait until next January to press our case are naïve at best, and more accurately, politically incompetent.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/26/2008 @ 10:14am<<<

BKOOL,

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you really do need to give Barack a chance to govern before jumping down his throat. Jumping the gun at this point and trying to create divisions among progressives over Obama only helps the Republicans retain the White House by inducing progressives to vote for Nader.

Posted by Metteyya at 06/26/2008 @ 1:19pm
In the absence of a successful Supreme Court challenge it does.

Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2008 @ 1:09pm

That's not true at all. How many laws have been passed and then were later found to be Unconstitutional? Does that mean before the laws were struck down they WERE Constitutional. No. It just means that no one had bother to look at their Constitutionality yet.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 1:24pm
SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and (2) by adding at the end the following: `(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705); `(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and `(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.

Here is the portion Thrawn the permits execution of a warrant without notice. They only have to give you notice within a "reasonable" amount of time. However this combined with the fact that fighting terrorism is considered state secrets means that they don't necessarily have to give you notice until the information is declassified or the protection of the country.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 1:27pm
Yes, John, there is a need to protect the Constitution, unfortunately, it is mostly from you and your ilk.

Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2008 @ 12:12pm

Unadulterated crap.

Posted by skeletonman at 06/26/2008 @ 1:32pm
"`(bb) a political, social or other similar group whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities,';"

Here is the other problem. The only person who holds the power to deem a group a terrorist group, is the Secretary of State. Therefore they can infiltrate college political groups if they decide it is a terrorist group.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 1:35pm
B Kool,

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you really do need to give Barack a chance to govern before jumping down his throat. Jumping the gun at this point and trying to create divisions among progressives over Obama only helps the Republicans retain the White House by inducing progressives to vote for Nader.

Posted by Metteyya

First off, Metteyya, it's not "jumping down his throat" to expect Barack Obama to, at a minimum, simply maintain his trademark carefully calculated neutrality.

If he is a progressive at heart, then why has he found it apparently necessary to veer so hard to the right since June 3rd?

In the end, it may be a fools game of false expectations to believe in the kind of **fundamental change that has been implied by Obama, but progressives are wise to expect their chosen candidate to at least maintain some dignified neutrality rather than blatant, and frankly embarrassing, kowtowing in such venues ranging from the AIPAC conference to Fortune magazine.

If Obama can't seem to find it in himself to pay even the most minimal lip service to the progressive agenda --an agenda that is so obviously the correct one for a nation reeling from Dubya's disastrous reign, and in drastic need of a radically corrective jerk of the pendulum-- then it is critically incumbent upon progressives to raise their voices immediately and aggressively to let him know that he's gone badly off course.

As I'd mentioned recently, the situation with Obama now is analogous to a scientific colloqium, and we the attendees are responsible for asking the tough questions now, not later.

We'll have only ourselves to blame if Obama enters the White House with a defective and badly crippled agenda in January.

**Evan Thomas in the latest issue of Newsweek:

And yet … One night later, I was standing on the floor of Joe Louis Arena in Detroit, deafened by the roar for Obama, who was giving one of his rousing speeches for change. I wondered what the 20,000 or so people in the crowd, many of them African-Americans, would have thought of the conversation I had participated in in the living room of my well-connected friend. The fact is that Washington is largely dominated by people, some of them very smart, who get paid well to represent the status quo and fairly narrow interests.

These people are not by any means wicked or unjust or venal--some of the guests at the party had performed significant public services in one way or another. Many of them were Democrats who will vote for Obama. But I am sure that if you took a poll and asked them whether Obama could really change Washington--could really close loopholes on energy companies and raise taxes on the rich; reform the health-care system; significantly scale back the ill effects of global warming; substantially improve public schools, or get us out of Iraq any time soon--the answer would be no, probably not. The people holding such realist views might even want such changes, or most of them. But they know how Washington works....

www.newsweek.com/id/142653

"Disconnect in the District"

Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/26/2008 @ 1:53pm
You and Evan Thomas need to challenge your own cynicism and doubt, as it is this sort of thinking that keeps us from moving forward.

......YES WE CAN change politics as usual in Washington and Barack Obama gives us the best prospect in several generations to do so.

Posted by Metteyya

Thanks for essentially a non-answer, Büdd Lite.

First, it's not cynicism to seek the truth and hold a politician accountable to the message that they ostensibly represent --it's called healthy skepticism.

Second, if Obama is the "change we can believe in" candidate, how are we supposed to continue to believe while he sells us down the river to the highest bidder --Sachs Goldman for example?

This is a serious inquiry, not some silly game of charades, dude.

There hasn't been any plausible reason for Obama to cave in to the degree that he has in the last few weeks --especially against a terribly inept and continually bumbling McCain-- except to ingratiate himself ignobly to the power players in DC as if performing an undignified rain dance for dollars.

Barack Obama's transformation in just three short weeks from Rorschach to corporate robot has been nothing short of nauseating.

And don't even come back with your typical lame lay-up attempts of, "But you don't understand, he has to go hard right to defuse any swift boat attacks on his liberal record."

Bullshit, Banana Slug.

I swat that garbage unceremoniously back into your starry eyed face.

The Dems have played the invertebrate role for far too long because we have let them. The deep pockets that run the show in DC have both parties by the 'nads, and we are gullible enough to sputter, "It's okay, the Dems are still so much better than the Rupugs."

It's not enough, people. We need to get angry, and we need to raise our voices to demand that these cheap suits stop folding every time one of the 35,000 locusts from K Street so much as makes a fluttering noise.

If a see-saw between the average citizen and the corporate chieftain represents the current political reality, the fulcrum has been shoved so far from the center that the entire contraption is in danger of collapse.

This is our reality.

I strongly suggest that we snap out of our t.v. induced trance soon, or it's only too likely we'll be lamenting how we "trusted" these guys too much even as they were draining our bank accounts.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/26/2008 @ 1:58pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 12:36pm |

I am against 90% of the Patriot Act.

Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/26/2008 @ 2:01pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/26/2008 @ 12:

First he opposes the war...now he's "in it to win it"....

previously he wouldn't vote for a Republican for dog-catcher....now he's "Madly for Maverick"...

who he previously thought was "mentally unbalanced"...

Now he's against the Fairness Doctrine...

Again, wouldn't you love to see OLD FRANK (pre-Her Nibs starting to lose) debate NEW FRANK.

Posted by Mask at 06/26/2008 @ 2:04pm
Holy time warp.

I sent that Metteyya smack down at 6:00 pm not 1:58 pm!

And I meant Goldman Sachs, not Sachs Goldman.

I believe it was a Freudian slip along the lines of Sachs Dolmar chain saw imagery --entirely apropos since we are getting massacred.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/26/2008 @ 2:07pm
You and Evan Thomas need to challenge your own cynicism and doubt, as it is this sort of thinking that keeps us from moving forward.

Sure, the system in Washington is broken, and sure, it will take substantial will and effort to bring about substantive change. But YES WE CAN change politics as usual in Washington and Barack Obama gives us the best prospect in several generations to do so.

Posted by Metteyya at 06/26/2008 @ 3:12pm
Thank God the SCOTUS stood up for 10% of the Bill of Rights today.----Posted by marybretbrad at 06/26/2008 @ 3:15pm

So does that mean you agree with their view on "cruel and unusual punishment" as well?

Posted by Mask at 06/26/2008 @ 3:55pm
ANOTHER PARANOID LIB

Posted by libzRfreaks at 06/26/2008 @ 3:43pm

Ever heard of Cointelpro? They did it. So history backs me up.

Another ignorant moron.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 4:02pm
But YES WE CAN change politics as usual in Washington and Barack Obama gives us the best prospect in several generations to do so.

Posted by Metteyya at 06/26/2008 @ 3:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Not if he sells out progressives between now and inauguration.

For the record, my initial response is to agree with the SCOTUS decision. Although regulation of gun ownership (background checks, denial to ex-felons, etc.) are no more an abrogation of the 2nd Amendment right than time, place and manner restrictions on speech, an absolute ban would seem to me to be unconstitutional.

I look forward to a chance to read the opinion itself.

Posted by brunowe at 06/26/2008 @ 4:07pm
Perhaps at 61 years I neither understand nor do I want to understand the hogwash I read here. Please get it together! You are younger than I am, I will be voting for Nader in November. Already I know it is a lost cause. But it is a voice that needs to be heard. After 61 years I have never encountered a "good" President. It is your turn. Remember I was an activist for Goldwater (grew up in West Texas- the day they held all the BBQ's to celebrate Kennedy's death, I switched parties...have been an activist for Obama), Please as he has centersized along the the lines of Clinton and Leiberman, reflecting the worst of The Democratic Party and the obvious corruption involved. The only vote left is Nader .

Posted by manyearss at 06/26/2008 @ 9:13pm
Barack "promised" he would filibuster Telecom immunity, but we see what he really is: Just Another Lying Politician.

We KNOW why the House went for it:

MAPLight.org's research department findings are based on the combination of contribution data from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) with voting data from THOMAS via GovTrack.us.

"Campaign contributions bias our legislative system," said Daniel Newman, Executive Director of MAPLight.org. "Simply put, candidates who take positions contrary to industry interests are unlikely to receive industry funds and thus have fewer resources for their election campaigns than those whose votes favor industry interests."

Democrats who changed their voting to support immunity for Telcos:

PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint (January 2005 - March 2008). Contribution House Member District 1 29500 Clyburn, James SC-6 2 29000 Hoyer, Steny MD-5 3 28000 Emanuel, Rahm IL-5 4 27500 Boucher, Frederick VA-9 5 26000 Meeks, Gregory NY-6 6 24500 Crowley, Joseph NY-7 7 24500 Pelosi, Nancy CA-8 8 24000 Bean, Melissa IL-8 9 22500 Edwards, Thomas TX-17 10 22100 Baca, Joe CA-43 11 21500 Engel, Eliot NY-17 12 19000 Bishop, Sanford GA-2 13 18500 Moore, Dennis KS-3 14 18500 Spratt, John SC-5 15 18500 Thompson, Bennie MS-2 16 16000 Melancon, Charles LA-3 17 15500 Cuellar, Henry TX-28 18 15500 Stupak, Bart MI-1 19 15000 Ackerman, Gary NY-5 20 14800 Butterfield, George NC-1 21 14300 Tanner, John TN-8 22 14000 Kind, Ronald WI-3 23 13500 Barrow, John GA-12 24 13500 Gordon, Barton TN-6 etc., etc., ad nauseum - and I really do mean Nausea...

Posted by sjduskin at 06/26/2008 @ 9:44pm
<i>Cccomf01</i>, how can you take someone named "libzRfreaks" seriously? libzRfreaks has nothing to bring to the table for intelligent consideration, forget that loser.

Posted by zhongman at 06/26/2008 @ 10:45pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 12:36pm

You speak some truth here CC. But how does the saying go, guns don't kill people, little kids people. OK, I added the little kids, it's people kill people, but they NRA dipshits don't finish the sentence. It's Guns don't kill people, people kill people with GUNS.

Theses assholes are more worried about profits for the businesses backing the friggin NRA than they are about requiring better safety locks on guns, making sure that ex-convicts don't have easy access to guns, selling automatic weapons to gang bangers etc. The people mostly backing this complete lunacy are republicans though I will through in that I also know a handful of dems who get all up in arms (pun intended) about having to register their damned war toys.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/27/2008 @ 12:17pm
It's Guns don't kill people..

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/27/2008 @ 12:17pm

Guns kill people. It is for that purpose that they were created, and modern weapons do it proficiently.

My opinion only, but I believe mandatory training is a must to reduce accidental deaths, with intensive didactic courses.

It will never happen, but it would help.

Posted by Benchrest at 06/27/2008 @ 2:11pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 1:24pm

"That's not true at all. How many laws have been passed and then were later found to be Unconstitutional? Does that mean before the laws were struck down they WERE Constitutional. No. It just means that no one had bother to look at their Constitutionality yet."

So, by your reasoning, every law we have is suspect because, after all, many laws have been found to be unconstitutional? Your reasoning is quite fucked up, my friend.

Posted by pontificus at 06/28/2008 @ 9:05pm
I love the Supreme Court's recent support of the Bill of Rights!

Posted by Person at 06/28/2008 @ 10:10pm