VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
by 1 Dragon, blogging at Socialism is Not the Answer
(Apr. 5, 2011) — Improper search and seizure…..
A number of court cases have been thrown out because of these few words but apparently Congress, TSA, judges across the country, Barry O and even some in talk radio (hosts)have no clue to its meaning. However, ask any inmate that is currently in custody at your local jail, they can tell you all about it.
So let me help, the TSA searches in airports are unconstitutional. Go ahead, read it, tell me I’m wrong………. and please don’t use the old lines that what they do is for our own protection.
Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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. (S0urce)
How about this one……….
Article II
Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. (Source)
Treason, Bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors………… this happens daily in Washington. Come on……… look at what has happened just in the last couple of years alone. Despite a public outcry, not one member of Congress said one word against Obama being sworn into Office. To this day Obama has yet to prove who he says he is. The man no one remembers from college, grade school or where ever. The only ones that do remember him are people he use to smoke pot with. Now that’s reassuring.
Was this treason? Well, unlike Obama, I’ll be honest, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV but for Congress to allow an unconstitutional man to hold the highest office and allow him to spend billions, to take over two of the largest auto makers, to bail out his union buddies, a Usurper in Chief. If it wasn’t, it comes pretty damn close, and just because the people elected Obama doesn’t make it right. Also, how many bribes have been made by the current administration in order to get Bills passed?
See the video and read the rest here.
I was disappointed by this article. Because it started with a discussion of TSA and possible Fourth Amendment violations, I expected to learn more about that. What I got instead was the ol’ bait and switch to yet another of the countless articles and blog posts written about Barky’s ineligibility that adds nothing new to the discussion.
——————–
Mrs. Rondeau replies: Please bear in mind that a blog post is not the same as a straight, “hard news” article. A blog entry is usually a combination of the creative work of the author and established fact. The Post & Email appreciates all of the submissions from bloggers and citizen writers who are not professionals, per se.
Talk about ignorance!
People, don’t put your faith in Donald Trump! There is something wrong with his picture!
Folks! Please read the U.S. Constitution. There is much more to Obama’s illegality than his place of birth and the damn birth certificate. Just being born in the United States alone does not qualify a person to be eligible as a candidate for the Office of the President!
Article 1 Section 2 Clause 2 says….No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. Then Article 1 Section 3 Clause 3 says….No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Have you gotten that? To be a member of the House or Senate a person must be a citizen!
But go to the part about the president… The Founding Fathers changed something. Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says….No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Did you see that? Two separate and distinct classes of citizenship had been created by the Founding fathers!
So shouldn’t the question be….What is the difference between a citizen and a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN as intended by America’s Founding Fathers? Why is it that it seems the Donald Trump’s and Bill O’Reilly’s of America just can’t ask this question? Why is it that they are obsessed with Obama’s place of birth or birth certificate when there is great potential that Obama’s place of birth and his birth certificate are irrelevant?
Has anyone ever heard the Bill O’Reilly’s of America, even discuss the U.S. Constitution’s NATURAL BORN CITIZEN clause? Donald Trump, has he talked about NATURAL BORN CITIZEN? Have any of them ever explained what the Founding fathers meant by NATURAL BORN CITIZEN? I don’t think so. But I distinctly recall the Bill O’Reilly’s of America calling people “BIRTHERS” just for questioning Obama’s legality! Isn’t that strange? These highly intelligent television people who have research staff that work for them never mention NATURAL BORN CITIZEN but will freely call people “BIRTHERS” for being Constitutionally minded citizens who ask about Obama’s eligibility to be a U.S. President. Now, why is that?
Folks! Here’s the problem that people like myself have. We read the U.S. Constitution. We also read the NATURAL BORN CITIZEN clause. We never hear about NATURAL BORN CITIZEN on Fox News or MSNBC, so therefore we ask questions! WE GET CALLED BIRTHERS IN RETURN!
But we didn’t just read the U.S. Constitution. We began to Google NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and learned some very interesting things that don’t get talked about here in America by any of our elected servants and protectors of the U.S. Constitution nor the Bill O’Reilly’s of America.
People! Google the 1874 U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor. V. Happersett. In that case, the seventh United States Supreme Court Chief Justice MORRISON R. WAITE provides the Founding Fathers of America definition of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is defined as being born to a mother and father whom are both U.S. citizens at the time of birth. Now why is this not news worthy? If some idiot goes swimming in the ocean and a shark takes a chunk out of them….that becomes national news. But have a legitimate discrepancy about the legality of a possible usurper living in America’s White House….SILENCE! NOW WHY IS THAT?
———————-
Mrs. Rondeau replies: Have all of these things not been covered here? Anyone is welcome to use the printer-friendly option for any of our articles and distribute them to friends, neighbors and others to inform them. WE are the media now!
I SAY GO FOR IT NOW….IMPEACHMENT………OBAMA HAS DONE ENOUGH OF DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY…..HE IS OUT FOR THE BIG TAKE-OVER, ‘KING’
We shall see if Glenn Beck will become more open now towards the “birther” issues:
Glenn Beck to End Daily Fox News Program
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/glenn-beck-to-end-daily-fox-news-program/?hp
To have his name removed from my black list, that openness would have to come with a big fat apology to “birthers,” complete with Blech’s teary-eyed blubbering.
All our representatives in Congress seem to get their campaign chests filled for re-election by fulfilling bribes. I think Lobbyists should be OUTLAWED immediately if not sooner!
patriotactionnetwork artical Will Gates issue military recognizance order
Two comments;
1) When you purchase an airline ticket you enter into a contract that has you, the traveler, giving up your rights.
2)high Crimes and Misdemeanors. I have a huge problem with the media on this one. They all had the same talking points when we were impeaching their 1st Messiah. This does not rise to the level of high Crimes and Misdemeanors. And the electorate just nods their heads. The term is supposed to hold those who would be removed only by impeachment to higher standard by stating not only will you be impeached for a high crime, but also a misdemeanor.
The generally accepted definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities, not felonies and misdemeanors or serious crimes and lesser crimes. If the Founding Fathers had intended that only criminal actions be grounds for impeachment, then they would have worded it that way, “…for treason, bribery and other criminal actions.”