Interesting post

An Interesting Post from Kim du Toit:

On the spirit of the 3rd Amendment. I'd like to ask our lawyers their thinking on his interpretation.

On the one hand, I like where he's going in terms of an appreciation of the Founders' devotion to "negative liberty," the best kind. On the other hand, the Amendment doesn't actually say "no agents of the state may observe you without cause," but rather, "the state shall not quarter soldiers in your house." The state does not do so, making the Third perhaps unique in that it is a point of the Constitution that the government obeys entirely and without exception.

How good is the argument he makes, then, as a point of interpretation? Given that the goal he describes is laudable, is it better to assert that the 3rd covers it -- or to push for a new amendment to cover it? It seems like one area where we could find a fair amount of common cause with our friends on the Left -- at least as long as Bush remains president; I suspect at least some of them who are expressing outrage over FISA etc. would be mollified by having Ms. Clinton in the White House. It's a point I think is important, however, regardless of who is in office. Surely at least some of those on the Left would feel the same way.

I've been thinking a lot about political reconciliation lately. It seems to me that, if we can ask it of the Iraqis, we can ask it of ourselves. Finding points of agreement on basic liberties, and pushing to secure them, seems like it would be doubly useful. It might restrain the government; and it might bring us back together somewhat as Americans.

No comments: