I oppose Rand Paul's Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013

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  The message would be clear:  The Constitution is outdated and invalid and must be reaffirmed by the politicians of today.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  Ask yourself this question:  What would happen if the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act were one day repealed?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