Can't help but wonder which other rights he thinks should be ignored. Or, "solved" by erasing them.
Only the ones that make his job harder....or that other liberals don't like.
Let's see:
Privacy (aka, being secure in our persons, papers, effects against unreasonable search and seizure);
Prior restraint;
Freedom of (and from unwanted) association;
Freedom of religion (libs tend to love freedom from religion);
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt of both intent and action (I can't you how often our local prosecutors lobby to remove or weaken requirements that a violation of laws include intent);
Quartering of troops (I recall the case a while back where cops seized a home for a temporary command post and the owner sued under the 3rd amendment; No idea how it turned out).
Fortunately, for all the really bad, big city chiefs out there, there also tend to be some really good, elected sheriffs, small town chiefs, and a lot of rank-and-file cops who really do desire to protect and serve their communities, to keep the peace, and to respect rights, perhaps even protect them encroachment by the feds, the other branches of government etc.
A few years ago the small town and county where I grew up was experiencing some real growing pains. Lots of California refugees had moved in because it was such a wonderful place to live....and then started complaining it wasn't just like the place they left. Some of the old timers started complaining about dogs running lose and harassing their livestock. The county commissioner said, "Well, if you have a problem animal in the unincorporated county, call the Sheriff." At this point the Sheriff spoke up and said, "BS! You haven't given me a budget for an animal control officer and my deputies have way more important things to deal with than a stray dog. If the citizens want a county wide animal country officer, they'll have to pony up some tax money to pay for it."
The commissioner asked, "Well then what should people do about stray dogs." The Sheriff responded, "Any dog running lose and harassing livestock can be shot, and that is exactly what folks should do if their neighbors won't keep their dogs properly contained."
This caused quite the consternation among some of the newer members of the community present. The local prosecutor, sensing a chance to make some points piped up with, "We can't have people just shooting willy nilly and if anyone violates any gun laws I'll be pressing charges."
To this, the sheriff said, "I won't be arresting anyone who safely puts down a loose dog that harasses livestock. And you'll have a tough time prosecuting anyone if I refuse to arrest them or serve any warrants. So if people don't want their dogs getting shot by ranchers, they better keep their dogs from harassing livestock as the law requires of them." And that pretty much ended the conversations.
Since then, the area has grown a lot, demographics have changed, and the new majority probably has elected officials who behave more like they saw in Cali than what the old time ranchers were used to. The only consolation is that influx of bodies has made land so valuable as the demand for housing has soared, that most of the old ranchers have sold out and either retired rich, or moved out beyond the reaches of urban silliness and started over on larger plots than they had previously.
The problem isn't "government" or even government officials, nearly so much as it is the ideas of our neighbors and fellow voters/citizens as to how society ought to be ordered. You and I have this silly notion that our lives, time, income, and property are our own, to do with as we see fit (within some broad limits we needn't argue about here). But a lot of our fellows are just as strongly convinced that they have some legitimate claim on our income, property, time, associations, and even expressions. In the absence of "government" some of these parasites might learn to work for themselves and then they might develop a similar affection as our own for we work to obtain. But there seems to be ample evidence that a lot of them would simply find other methods to take what they want: gang membership seems to be popular in many urban areas. I'm convinced there are no small number who--though they'd never admit it--are actually less concerned about getting what you and I have for themselves, than they are with simply doing what they can to prevent anyone from having any more than they have. In other words, if they were millionaires and had everything that bought, they'd still be very unhappy that there were billionaires with something more. They would actually be happier in poverty, so long as everyone else was there in poverty with them. They take no joy nor comfort in what they have, but only in having as much as everyone else. And that is a very dangerous position because it takes a lot less to destroy opportunity for others than it does to build anything.
And I apologize for the OT tangent.
Charles
