fourth amendment

Say Uncle thinks some of the blogigentsia is a bit late to the game on the death of the Fourth Amendment:

File under Utterly ridiculous.

A public school in California is now requiring students to wear RFID so they can track them. No, seriously.

File under Utterly ridiculous.

A public school in California is now requiring students to wear RFID so they can track them. No, seriously.

In theory, we base decisions on who we vote for based on how that person supports or favors our issues - the ones we respond to at a significant level, whether it be war or life or economics. So what does the media cover?

The Bush Administration apparently believed that the 4th amendment did not apply to military operations inside the country:

What, that’s what I said not what I meant.

Respected liberal constitutional scholar and Obama supporter Laurence Tribe stated there was individual right to arms guaranteed by the constitution and noted he may have sway with the liberal justices in the Heller case. Now, he’s written a bit in the WSJ asserting basically that:

1) There is an individual right (I agree)

2) That right is not absolute (I also agree as no right is absolute)

3) Banning handguns

David Kopel summarizes three new research studies examining the Framers’ contextual understanding of the words used in the Second Amendment. In contrast, anti-gun activists tend to read the Second Amendment using their own modern understanding of words like “militia”, instead of viewing the amendment in its proper historical context.