G.W. wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
Sorry, G.W., but "to be secure in your person" means the government
can't invade your privacy without cause -- including your phone
calls.

It's a little bit like the way we apply the 2nd Amendment today. The
FF's were talking about muzzle-loading, flintlock muskets only. But
most people here would expand the defininition of "arms," much like
we have expanded the defininition of "secure in your person." New
technology requires us to consider how the *principle* applies to
the new conditions.

As for "Al Qaeda-connected people," as a former administration lawyer
explained yesterday, all they know in most cases is that somebody
accused of being Al Qaeda had their phone number on a computer
database -- or that somebody on the database had called them. There
can be several degrees of separation. It could have been their
manicurist when they visited the US, and the person whose phone is
being tapped could turn out to be the manicurist's bookie. g

--
Ed Huntress

I agree, for the most part, but I just hope that when we are
"expanding the definition" of the Constitution that we don't take it
too far. For example, the idea that "free speech" equals pornography.
Maybe that idea was expanded a tiny bit too far.


G.W.,
You can't legistlate morality.
Be a better parent. What better opportunity is there to teach proper moral
behavior is there?
I do realize that many parents are simply to lazy or irresponsible to be of
much use as parents but that's the only real answer and it's also the whole
problem.
The same is true for abortion and other like issues. Making this illegal
won't appreciably reduce demand. If you want to reduce demand bring kids up
not to "demand" the things in the first place. As long as that demand exists
a supply will be at hand. That may outrage some but the facts remain outrage
or no...

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com