I believe the younger Dr. Paul is making a well-intentioned step in the wrong direction with the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013. Passing such an act would set the precedent that the rights spelled out in the American Bill of Rights must be shored up by flimsy legislation that is subject to the whims of an irresponsible legislature and the interpretation of overreaching executives. The message would be clear: The Constitution is outdated and invalid and must be reaffirmed by the politicians of today. This is a slippery slope if ever one existed.
If this act were to pass, constitutionalist legislators would find themselves trying to pass the First Amendment Restoration Act, the Second Amendment Restoration Act, the Third... By default, the Constitution would be considered amended by regular legislation without the rigors of the amendment process. Suddenly, any and all legislation would trump the Constitution. While many modern politicians assume this to be the case anyway, passing this legislation would place that belief in cement.
I oppose Rand Paul's Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013, not because I don't like the Fourth Amendment, but because I wish to preserve the supremacy of the Constitution. By the introduction of such legislation, the younger Paul has admitted that legislation is already on the books (i.e. the PATRIOT Act) that violates the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the proper course of action is to move to repeal such legislation. Senator Paul's current direction will nullify the Constitution de facto.
Although well-intentioned, the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013 should be scrapped. Ask yourself this question: What would happen if the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act were one day repealed?
Follow @DerrelWalters
I agree, but it order to accomplish your aims, I would use a two part plan (1) I would do exactly what Rand is doing, knowing it would be voted down, but would draw intense public awareness to the issue. And then (2) after it is voted down and with public awareness on my side, I would then move to bring formal impeachment.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Senator Paul's Restoration Act is pointless and does set a wrong precedent. But the judges are bought & paid for by the establishment. They need to get a serious reminder of their oaths of office and perhaps a re-reading of the Constitution & Bill of Rights.
ReplyDeleteSenator Paul's Restoration Act, while very well intentioned, leads to completely rewriting the Constitution.
but much legislation already trumps the Constitutions until adjudicated by the Supreme Court as per Marbury v Madison
DeleteThe timing of young Paul's bill is interesting, syncing as it does with the mass awareness of mass information gathering -- which is no surprise to those who follow these issues, of course (you have mentioned such evidence in the past). We were about to release our member campaign in support of this bill, but you have given us pause, Derrel, in your point that the Constitution needs no legislative validation, no little hand stamp. On the other hand, the legislators definitely do need reminders.
ReplyDeleteJosh (Loyal9.org)
The Constitution has already been nullified. You make a logical argument however I see no reason that this movement is unworthy of support. Also, speaking from the perspective of a so-called African American/Black man, the Constitution definitely has needed further written clarification as it was written by and for a specific group of human beings to the exclusion of a majority of the population(females and non-white caucasian males).
ReplyDeleteI find your concerns valid,but if nothing is done i believe the 4th amendment and other bill of rights amendments will continue to be eroded by the courts maybe congress needs to reaffirm the constitution and the bill of rights
ReplyDelete