chambliss must be reading a different constitution

In visiting my senators’ webpages yesterday I discovered that one of them, Senator Saxby Chambliss, has a podcast! Cool, I thought. But then, I was so young and naive then, having not yet listened to it. Today, I did listen to it. I learned that he along with just three other senators was an official observer of the Iraqi elections back in December. That’s kind of cool. I’ve also learned though that he is a strong supporter of the PATRIOT Act (yes, kettle, for all my wailing about how you need to keep tabs on your representatives, I’m only just now doing so myself) and that, well, I think he needs to re-read the Constitution (assuming he has read it before, which, considering the following quote, is questionable):

“Clearly the President has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct warrantless searches…. [the resolution passed September 14th, 2001] reaffirms the fact that the President does have, in certain situations, the obligation to protect the American people, which includes the authorization to conduct warrantless searches.”

I know I just explained all this a few days ago, but I’m so floored by Chambliss’s lack of reading comprehension that I can’t help but go over it again.

Since I started writing, I have received responses from both Chambliss and Senator Johnny Isakson to my webform submitted requests that they support Feingold’s censure resolution. The email from Chambliss is clearly a form letter which makes no reference to my request (not that I seriously expected his support, given that even the Democrats are running away like scared little girls because they care more about getting re-elected than protecting your Constitutional rights).

Isakson’s response though actually discussed his position on the wiretapping program. It may be a form letter response (and I hope he’s getting enough brimstone hurled his direction that he’s had to compose a form letter on the subject), but it was at least a directed one. In essence, what he said is the same as above, but it differs enough that I’ll be doing a separate post to cover it.

But, I’ve gathered you all here, excuse me, gathered both of you here (must keep in mind how big my audience actually is), to discuss the quote above. See, I have a confession. I didn’t re-read the entire Constitution the other day. I know I skipped over the women’s suffrage amendment, the 18 year old voting age amendment, the prohibition amendments, so maybe I just missed the part where our founding fathers decided that warrantless searches were only bad if they were done by the British, and we’re Americans, we can trust our leaders.

So, just to be sure, I decided to search the Constitution for the word “warrant”. Oddly enough, it doesn’t appear in Article II. In fact, the only place I could find it was in the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (emphasis mine)

So why is the word “searches” emphasized? Because that’s the first place where it appears in the Constitution. So how in the name of Jared Ingersoll does Article II “clearly” grant Bush the authority to conduct warrantless searches when the only place such beasties are mentioned is in the amendment where they are forbidden? Oh, because he is obligated to protect the people? Yet the only place “protect” appears in Article II is in the oath he takes to protect the Constitution, which, by clearly violating the Fourth Amendment, he is clearly not doing.

Isakson actually discussed the reason for the program instead of just telling us all that there’s apparently a hidden section in Article II that you can only see if you have a SuperDeDuper Congressional (or Presidential) Decoder Ring. Tomorrow I’ll address that letter, including the parts with which I agree! (See what happens when I’m single and I have a bottle of scotch next to my bed? I write, alot, everyday. Either suffer or bring me women and more scotch to shut me up.)