The Twenty-Second Amendment - Too late

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

 Thank you FDR. After Eight years in office with the new super federal power, enough damage has been done by one person. It is simply too much of a temptation to turn the United States into a personal empire.

Usually when I think of a personal empire I think of a man named Suharto. Actually its something me and Obama have in common, we were both ruled by the same person growing up. He lived in Suharto's Indonesia in 1968 and I live in Suharto's Indonesia in 1998. By the time Suharto resigned he had gained a fortune of about $15 billion dollars and had stacked government positions top to bottom with close friends and members of his family.

Without the Twenty-Second amendment could that have happened in the United States? We would like to think not because we are a democracy, but then again, so is Indonesia. Anything is possible, and the best thing we can do to prevent having an emperor is to set up our government to not be able to support one. The Two-term limit should have been official long before FDR, and FDR should have held himself to it anyway.

The Nineteenth Amendment - Women's Sufferage

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Well, there you have it, now everyone can vote right? Ha, we still have to add in 18, 19, and 20 year old's in to the mix.

Again, I'm a very right wing dude. I see a lot of problems in our society in respect to gender issues and the strength of the family, but really none of these problems conservatives see can possibly stem from giving women the right to vote.

Even if you do make the case that the man's vote was really a vote for the family, you still have to take into account widows and unmarried women, where would there representation come from?

The Eighteenth Amendment - 2nd worst Amendment

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

What were these people thinking??? Look I'm about as conservative right-wing fundamentalist christian as a 25 year old can get, and I see absolutely no reason to ever consider banning alcohol. But in a way, I'm pretty relieved, taking the liberal side of an amendment makes it a lot easier to find videos.

 
Yes, I actually think this makes a point. When people are just forced into not having a substance they have grown accustomed to, they go crazy. Trust me, I have given up smoking, felt a lot like Homer there for a while. However I was quitting for my wife and for my family, if it was some ugly woman and a bunch of idiots in the government telling me to quit I would have been to the nearest smoke-easy for a 50 dollar pack of reds.
"Well Mr. Conservative, if you're so against prohibition, why are you against marijuana." I'm not. I've never touched the stuff, I think it makes you stupid, but it should be legal. Harder drugs should not be legal because they are unquestionably and extremely harmful to the addicts that use them.

 

The Seventeenth Amendment - Worst, Idea, Ever

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

In effect, it means that Senators shifted from being elected by each state's legislature to being voted on by the state as a whole. Sounds great right? Not so right. In fact, I think this is possibly the worst thing to ever happen to the constitution.

This guy brought up some interesting facts I didn't know about, but it all sounds like the government was functioning the way it was supposed to up until 1913. The idea of it all just makes more sense. The House was supposed to decide what the government should do and the Senate would essentially decide if they had the power to do that in the first place.

If you think about it, say you have 10 congressmen. 6 are against recreational marijuana, 4 are for it. 8 of them already have their own state legislature enforcing their own laws. If those 10 congressmen were in the house you would expect them to pass a law banning marijuana. On the other hand if those 10 congressmen were in the senate, who had to pay attention to their states laws, you would expect a majority to want to keep the federal government out of their business.

Another interesting fact is that it is the Senate, not the House, that approves of supreme court justices. Wouldn't it have been wise to re-examine that function of the senate? Especially considering the near unlimited power an activist judge can have (see 10th amendment blog)? Instead what we are left with is a Supreme Court that is more concerned with legislating their opinions than caring about the history of the country and letting people be ruled by their home states.

The Sixteenth Amendment - We're gonna tax ya

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I'm no expert on the history of the US tax code, but I think that pretty much means the government is going to figure out a way to tax you no matter what. Before the sixteenth amendment there were questions about weather or not an income tax was constitutional. Due to not so unique feelings that the rich were consolidating too much power, the southern and western states ganged up on the north east to pass progressive income taxes.

The question is, what does the federal government do with that money? In comparison, what were the "rich" going to do with that money? The rich typically invest their money in companies, save their money which greatly increases the money supply in an economy, they may hire some people to do things which is always good, or they donate to a charity of their choosing.

The government on the other hand will typically fritter away other people's money in a way that is unaccountable, inefficient, unfair, and will usually have unintended consequences... For example

When the government goes around handing out pell grants and cheap student loans, its good for everyone right? Students get money for tuition and books and ipods, get their education, then go along paying back all that money and become good contributing members of society right? Not so much..

Colleges and Universities are in effect given a price target on tuition. Students are given the money at next to no effort on their own, they generally don't give enough thought to the fact that they are paying $599 per credit hour and the community college down the road is charging $50. In addition, more students are committing a lot of other people's money on degrees that are not really worth it. Sure art history is fun, but is it worth while to go $50,000 in debt for a degree in it? Of course it is when it's not your $50,000.

Private individuals and charities can spot problems like this and target their resources accordingly, doing so in the government is not so easy. And no, I'm not totally ignorant, of course the rich and corporations do illegal and unethical things some times. And of course they should be punished for those things, but forcing them to hand all of their money over to the government is not the answer.

The Fifteenth Amendment - Voting

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

The Fifteenth was the final "reconstruction amendment" and promised all citizens the right to vote. The ability for blacks to hold office was also included in many versions of the amendment, but even though it didn't make it to the final version many southern legislatures soon started seeing a lot of black state senators and representatives.

However by the 1890's, southern democrats had started instituting poll taxes and literacy tests designed to disenfranchise black voters. This issue was not addressed until much later in our history, and it extended the reign of atrocities against African Americans for generations.

It is interesting how important the right to vote is to people who have had that right violated by their governments. In Iraq and Afghanistan, voters brave suicide bombers and attacks in order to cast a vote for a better tomorrow for their people.

Meanwhile, we in the US are so apathetic about politics, that even when we do vote sometimes we just do so without even making the effort to learn about the issues or the candidates. A zogby poll of Obama voters in 2008 showed that over 50% of them didn't know which party was in control of congress at the time (it was the democrats), but they still turned out to vote out the republicans that were obviously to blame for all the problems of the last two years.

The Fourteenth Amendment - Equality & Reconciliation

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The fourteenth amendment is another great amendment following the Civil War. It promises citizenship to all born within the jurisdiction of the United States, expelling the Dread Scott ruling that blacks could not be citizens. I can't help but give a little "hell yeah" inside whenever the people come together to write an amendment when the supreme court has failed to make the right decision.

The Amendment also wisely puts a stop to an official caste type system before it began. It would have been all too easy for southerners to just officially label blacks as second class citizens without that. Granted the supreme court still accepted the "separate but equal"doctrine for a time, it was still a very wise step in the right direction.

I picked this cartoon because it brings up an interesting point about the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment does not go into details on the legal status of the parents when the person in question is born. Its another example on how we have taken vague language from an amendment and have been forced to use it out of context. The people who wrote the 14th amendment were not talking about immigration, they were talking about slavery, and they had to pick language accordingly. I personally do not think it is unreasonable to take into account the legal status of the parents when granting the child citizenship.

On the other hand... if we are going to go ahead and apply the 14th Amendment liberally to everything under the sun how the hell does it not apply to the unborn, or at the very least children born alive as the result of a failed abortion? Just this week the Obama administration said they were going to look into a country's LBGT discrimination before handing out foreign aid, but last year when Biden went to China he said he "understood" their one child policy, which leads to millions of abortions and cases of infanticide of girls. Why are some groups so eager to expand the 14th amendment to include open homosexuals, that are not a suspect class and are a group that is arguably better off than average Americans, but deny any rights whatsoever to a child that is unwanted?

The Thirteenth Amendment - Road to Freedom

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

After a long pause in amendments, we finally passed one that is unquestionable good. It is clear and should have been there from the beginning. The Union had won, and the Abolitionist movement had finally succeeded in their goals

What this means is that from that day on, we could have a lot more pride in our country not being comprised of hypocrites. Christians shouldn't have ever been able to tolerate slavery. Secular "free thinkers" should have never been about to tolerate slavery. It never should have happened. Although it was a long road to try to get us to true racial harmony, the thirteenth amendment was the greatest step in that direction.

The Twelth Amendment - Common Sense

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

In a long story short the president and the vice-president run in the election together. This followed a nasty election in 1796 where the president and vice-president were from two different parties.

If we had stayed under the old system, we would probably have a country that had gone through a lot of violent transitions between president and vice-president, because the vice-president was still first in line to replace the president.

The Eleventh Amendment - Sounds Good

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

This all kind of flows together with the 10th Amendment, the level and power of state governments is very important to holding things together, and challenges to state laws should be scrutinized. 

Along with my prop 8 rant, I think this amendment has been overrun as well. I mean, if you are suing the governor of a state, how is that different than suing the state. The case that overturned prop 8 was Perry v. Schwarzenegger, but Schwarzenegger didn't even want to defend himself in the suit and praised Walker's decision against him.

The person they were really suing were the people of California, if you have a problem with the people of California move to Nevada.

The Tenth Amendment - Home Rule Overrun

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is my favorite amendment, and its probably the one that is the most ignored and abused.

It is kind of interesting that it comes right after the 9th, that says the people have rights by default, the 10th essentially says the federal government has its hand's tied by default. But that is not the way we see things played out

California's proposition 8 was probably one of the most famous state referendums in the nation in 2008. After heated protests and demonstrations the people of California vote to amend their constitution to ban gay marriage. The will of the people right? This is a state issue isn't it? After all, the people of California and all the other states where gay marriage bans have been on the ballot, deserve to have a say in their laws right? Not so fast. Proposition 8 was overturned by a lone federal judge, who, after his retirement, told the press he was gay and in a long term relationship.

In Judge Walker's decision, he even said, "An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence." However, in the end, instead of saying he didn't have the power to overturn their decision based on what was obviously his personal opinion, instead of saying the constitution has never addressed gay marriage, instead of deciding to recuse himself, he overturned the will of the people.

The tenth amendment is really what makes our country great, we don't all have to agree %100, %100 of the time. When we are able to turn to Jefferson City or Topeka to petition, protest, lobby, or run for office you will find yourself with a much much louder voice then you have going through Washington DC. So don't you want the most decisions possible to come from your own state government? If you really think about the functions of the federal government laid out in the Constitution, it was really only limited to the things the states simply can't. Imagine if Hawaii had to raise its own navy to fight off Japan. Imagine if we had customs offices between the borders of every state, Kansas City would look a little different for sure.

Do you know what you can do if you don't like the state laws in Kansas? You can move to Missouri! However what happens when the federal government starts taking more power and making every decision. Where do you go to get away from that?

We were designed to be a country that can disagree a little, but still come together to defend the nation and maintain a running free economy. If we continue on the path of sacrificing states rights everyone is going to lose. Imagine if we had George Bush deciding every part of the nations social policies just to have it all changed by Obama? At one point or another everyone isn't getting what they want.

The Ninth Amendment - True Limitation on Federal Power

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ah, the good 'ol Ninth... not one of my favorites in the way it has been used, but it's purpose is still pretty important. I personally don't want every single thing I'm allowed to do to have to be spelled out on ANY government paper. So yes, technically when I say "you have no right to privacy." or something like that a strong case can be made against me based on the Ninth...

The question is... Where does it end??? People seem to think the Ninth means, "You have all the preceding rights, plus whatever rights you want to claim." Does that mean you have a constitutionally protected right to an abortion? pornography? prostitution? Do you have the right to access marijuana based on the ninth? I don't think so.

The founding fathers were concerned the fact that they listed out rights would be used to curtail the rights people already had. Its like a mother telling her child "you can have some desert, watch some TV, and play a game before you go to bed." And the kid runs off understand he's not allowed to do his homework... I disagree with that. I think the ninth means the kid still has the right to eat his dinner.

I think people should pay close attention to the final words of the amendment "or disparage others retained by the people," That means they didn't intend to disparage the rights that the people CURRENTLY had. Anything that was illegal around the ratification of the Constitution can not be called unconstitutional now on account of the ninth. If the founding fathers observed such a conflict, they would have addressed it.

The Eighth Amendment - Freedom from Humanity

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

 You do not need to look far back into history to find reasons why we need the eighth amendment. There is no end to the cruelty people have inflicted on others. Even our own country has not always done the right thing with methods of execution, fines, and jail conditions.

This is a picture of a Saddam era prison. Just ten years ago this was a place where you would expect to see people tortured for political information, or just as punishment.

I'm very proud to come from a country that doesn't light people on fire or drill through their kneecaps.


The Eighth Amendment should promise me and every American, that even if you break the law and are convicted, you will not be tortured and abused... but it not always done so.

Of course this scene is dramatized... I'll admit that, however there is one known case of someone's head catching fire during an execution. How did this (does this) get by the Eight's Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause. It is obviously cruel. If you were suffering on your death bead and wanted to be put out of your misery would you be headed for a bottle of cyanide or the power outlet? Electrocution is obviously more painful than hanging or firing squad, and I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would find the idea of it pretty unusual.

Maybe people just got too caught up on the new technology, hopefully we won't ever discover how to make micro black holes. Maybe if we did someone would conclude that ripping people apart with a black hole is a humane method of execution.

The Seventh Amendment - No Judicial Tryanny

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

This is another one of those amendments that isn't taken seriously at face value, but we wouldn't want to live in a world without it. Judges in courts are in effect agents of the government, but most of us don't' see them that way because they are not politicians. But if the judges and politicians ever banded together to hurt individuals, they could do a lot of damage. Whats the point of the previous amendments, if you took the government to court over financial losses and the judge just dismissed your case?

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=168611&title=asylum-sentence

I think this video kind of shows how easily someone could get ripped off by an aristocratic judge that doesn't care about the people. Thankfully the 7th amendment promises us we will be judged BY the people not only in criminal cases, but significant financial cases too. 

The Sixth Amendment - Fairness

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

My favorite trial movie of all time is 12 angry men. A teenager is one vote away from being convicted after an inept lawyer leaves a void in the defense filled by one member of the jury. He eventually takes the jury from a vote of 11-1 for guilty to 12-0 for not guilty. In the middle of the movie, as the "guilty" group is dropping like flies, one juror exposes the side of everyone you should completely ignore when deciding a man's life. The Sixth amendment promises a trial by an impartial jury, but in a world of whites vs blacks, rich vs poor, east vs wet, north vs south, is that a promise anyone can keep?

This fictional character was lucky, throughout our nation's history there have been far too many real unlucky ones. All too often in this country, justice for a murdered white person bypassed the dry eyed widow, ignored drunken disgruntled business partners, and went straight for the nearest known person of color. We should always remember these stories, like in To Kill a Mocking Bird, and realize how many different kinds of deep prejudice we hold against countless groups of people, because when a false conviction is handed out, everyone loses. The victim, the defendant, the future victims of the real criminal, and the faith we all weakly hold in the criminal justice system suffer in various ways when we ignore reality and embrace vengeance.

Like all laws and amendments in the Bill of Rights, this one is open to be abused by the poor judgment of individual people. Congresses, Supreme Court Justices, and Presidents can all hurt our rights one way or another if they don't take them seriously. However the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is only directly violated by our ignorance and our lack of education.

The Fifth Amendment - More Protection

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

One thing that comes to mind for me when I read the Fifth Amendment, my first thought is really about Guantanamo bay and the War on Terrorism prisoners there. People seem to be quick to snatch up their constitutions in defense of these war criminals, but it doesn't apply at all. The prisoners are not US Citizens, and they are not being held in the United States. However, does the federal government retain the power to hold them anyway? There is always the quote by Benjamin Franklin on their side, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." but there are two problems with that. Benjamin Franklin was not the Emperor of The United States, everything he ever said can not be considered the law of the land, and secondly, he never actually said that.

I think the government does have the power to permanently imprison enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield or in Jimmy's corn field, based on the language of the Fifth Amendment. The founding fathers seem to have bent over backwards when writing this amendment to ensure the ability of the government to defend themselves. When you consider the motive of islamic terrorists, and the amount of destruction a very small group can do with modern technology, it is clear that this war is just as serious as others.

The other thing that comes to mind is the protection of not being compelled to testify against yourself. From a conservatives point of view, of course this provision is abused, but I would never want to lose this protection. If you can't be compelled to witness against yourself in a trial, it eliminates a major motive to torture defendants. Everyone can agree that it can not be the procedure of our police forces to catch someone, torture them until they "admit what they did", then throw them in jail. Torture in general produces unreliable results and doesn't make us any safer, because while the accused are confessing crimes the real criminals are free to commit more crimes.

People in general don't like how much the criminals are protected by the law. But history seems to show these issues as "all or nothing" types of protections. If we didn't have the 4th 5th and 6th, the police forces would simply be too tempted to take the easy road in investigating and punishing criminals. When police forces do that, everyone loses. In the system we have now, it is not a simple matter of criminals being able to run rampant, but in many places in the world the police are able to run rampant doing whatever they want. 

The Fourth Amendment - Not a Source of Innocence

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.

Since the United States government began banning substances like marijuana and cocaine, the fourth amendment has become one of the most called upon among the bill of rights. We should all be honoring the fourth amendment far more than that, because it continues the theme of weakening the power of the agents of government in comparison with the rights of the people.

When I think of the fourth amendment, I think of Tunisia, the Arab Spring, and Mohamed Bouazizi. Bouazizi was a Tunisian street vendor who was repeatedly harassed by police. The last time a policewoman decided to confiscate his possessions on the street Bouazizi went before police headquarters, doused himself with gasoline, and lit himself on fire. The ensuing riots and protests forced the Tunisian president to step down, the first Arab leader to do so this year. While the Arab Spring is not turning out to be a good step towards freedom in the world, the incident that started it is a perfect example of why we need the fourth amendment.

Sane people around the world will always be reluctant to demand legislation to weaken police forces, especially with a world wide news media that is hell bent on igniting a viewer's interest with a five second lead in. So if we lived in a society today that had Tunisia's problem of police corruption, what would the headlines read when someone goes to limit the police? "Senator Doe introduces legislation to make you less safe from criminals."

Thankfully the founding fathers started us off on the right foot, our police officers can't punitively start searching your home just because they don't like you. They can't take away your livelihood until you decide to pay them a bribe... sure, abusing the 4th amendment looks sexy on The Shield, but when you have a million cops doing it, obviously what you get is a corrupt police force.

Instead what we get here in America is a bunch of pseudo-adults who don't appreciate what they have. Like this guy in the video, claiming "his amendments were violated." I'm really getting tired of seeing this everywhere I go. People need to pay attention to the word "reasonable." If you are walking around reeking of an illegal substance, intoxicated with an illegal substance, is it not reasonable to believe you may possess an illegal substance? Frankly, its only unreasonable if police are searching you only with the intention of punishing you or coercing you to do something they want.