More Concerns About McCain & Original Intent

As a strong Pro-life person & someone who believs that the Constitution means exactly what it says, I am a firm believer in the need for judges to be strict constructionists who follow the original intent of our Founding Fathers who wrote it & the 27 ensuing amendments. If the Supreme Court Justices who voted to legalize abortion in Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton had been strict constructionists they would never have ruled as they did. At the least they would have recognized that it was a state's place to decide to legalize abortion. At best they would have honestly admitted that an unborn child was a person who's right to life was protected by the Constitution.

A few weeks ago I wrote about my doubts that John McCain's claim that he would only nominate judges who were strict constructionists. My reason was simple. If the judges were truly stict constructionists, they would overturn McCain-Feingold, the law that puts unconstitutional limits on campaign donations.

Yesterday's news reports about McCain's views on warrantless wiretaps didn't assure me 1 little bit. Here is the opening paragraph from yesterday's NY Times: "A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team." (emphasis mine)

The article goes on to say: "In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance." (again emphasis mine)

My question is this: "WHERE??????????" The last I looked there was no such power. In fact the 4th Amendment says just the opposite: "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)

In the 1967 Supreme Court decision, Katz v United States, the court made it clear that this requirement for a warrant covered phone calls as well. (FYI, the Supreme Court voted 7-1 in favor of Katz, Thurgood Marshall didn't take part.)

A phone call is a phone call. That means wireless as well as those transmitted via a phone line. I won't go into all the technicalities, but even calls by a land line may be partially transmitted by microwaves.

& an e-mail is a written correspondance even if it isn't on paper. It is a part of a person's effects as much as any traditional letter is.

As you can see, this latest pronouncement from the McCain camp has done nothing but increase my concerns about the type of judges McCain will appoint. & like many people this just acts to raise my level of fustration with this year's choices. I can't vote for Obama, he IS pro-abortion. McCain has a better, not perfect, pro-life record. He has supported much Pro-life legislation, embryonic stem-cell research being the biggest exception. Yet, I have to wonder how serous he will be about the issue as president. McCain's choice of VP will either allay or increase my concerns (as well as those of many other Pro-lifers). If he opts for someone who is strongly Pro-life, then a lot of my concerns will vanish. If he goes with a person who is weak or even pro-choice then he will have lost a lot of Pro-life votes. They will see no difference between them on the issue of Pro-life. & they will be right.

I have the following quote from Ben Franklin at the top pf this blog: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I am all for the safety of our country. But not at the expense of liberty. There are plenty of Constitutional means to protect our country. There NEVER is any reason to shred even 1 Amendment to shreds, not even national defense.

Source: Adviser Says McCain Backs Bush Wiretaps