United States Constitution, Amendment IV, 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.

(Keep in mind that part about “probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”)

Arch noted yesterday — with tongue planted firmly in cheek — that according to Illinois Review’s analysis of Congressman Bill Foster’s first vote in Congress we are, apparently, all going to die.

Well, yes, we eventually will all die. But not because of Bill Foster’s vote to uphold the rule of law and honor the Constitution.

The very interesting thing here is that while the final vote on the FISA matter had a comfortable margin, the procedural vote before it passed by a single vote. Rep. Foster provided that margin by replacing a GOP vote (Speaker Hastert’s) against our Constitution with a Dem vote in favor of our founding document.

It’s the least we Americans should expect of our Congressmen.

Curious then that Fran Eaton would get hopping mad that Rep. Foster voted to uphold our 4th Amendment rights… except when you realize that it is Ms. Eaton’s idol, conservative Pres. Bush, who wanted to violate our 4A rights.

Ms. Eaton regurgitates:

Bill Foster is already playing partisan politics with America’s national security. In a weak attempt to distract voters from the Democrats’ negligence to renew the Protect America Act, Foster voted in lock-step with the liberal Democrat leadership to fund duplicitous pet projects over critical human intelligence programs.

Her own Ill Review commenters put her squealing in perspective…

From “GB“:

Remember that Tim Johnson down in the 15th also voted to block this FISA bill. Is he, too, guilty of “partisan votes that compromise America’s national security”? Does he, too aid and abet terror as you are insinuating? No American wants to make this country less safe; stop trying to always assume moral high ground with inflammatory language, a poor reflection of the actual issue at hand, and little room for dissent. When you decry partisan bickering, yet you capitulate to the same, it speaks volumes about your intentions as well.

From “raz60115“:

Gotta disagree with the premise of the post.

The bill had nothing to do with national security. The telecoms have current immunity to cooperate with the nosy feds. The bill had everything to do with retroactive immunity for cooperating with the feds while the feds admittedly broke the FISA law.

Foster’s vote was a vote for the rule of law; the partisans here are trying to put illegal behavior, which the administration admits to, beyond judicial accountability and review.

And, from “TheReallyRightGuy“:

This is a totally ridiculous issue. We’re never going to be trusted by the American people until we get beyond fear mongering and offer concrete principles and benefits.

Precisely. Although, to be sure, the one thing these commenters didn’t point out to Ms. Eaton is that the President’s illegal wiretapping activity originally had nothing to do with combatting terrorism (that was an excuse they came up with after cynically using the Sept. 11th attacks for partisan gain).

You see, this so-called “conservative” Administration approached the telcos with the illegal domestic wiretapping program seven months before Sept. 11th (in other words, only three months after Bush took office). (h/t georgia10)

Why is it illegal? Remember that last part of the 4th Amendment I told you to keep in mind? What the Bush Administration wanted AT&T, Qwest and other Big Telcos to do was simply scoop up any and all communications without warrant, without probable cause, without particular description of elements to be seized, etc. In other words, President Bush literally wants to be a Peeping Tom on every single American citizen.

Only Qwest refused, based wisely on the 4th Amendment, and they now have a very good case suggesting that the Bush Administration retaliated against them by causing hardships for the business enterprise (apparently rank partisanship trumps even loyalty to Big Business).

…And that case (and a few other related court cases) leads to my favorite comment from the lemming side of the Ill Review aisle. It takes a special breed of uber-partisan to roll a few con red herrings all into one, so Pete Speer takes the cake with his rant against the Dems and those evil(-til-you-need-one) trial lawyers:

Bill [Foster] will get his just reward — from the Trial Lawyers Association. As will the Democrat [sic] House Campaign Committee.

Truly strange that the cons would somehow spin their fight to dismantle the 4th Amendment into a battle against not after-the-fact terrorists but instead against … lawyers.