Protect, don't destroy, amendments
Published: Sunday, March 21, 2004 at 3:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, March 20, 2004 at 11:00 p.m.
Dear Editor: Liberty is absolute. You are either free or not. The Constitution was designed to prevent tyranny. So when one proposes repealing Constitutional protections, as did Nicholas Kristof in his ill-advised column "Some civil liberties can be sacrificed" [3/18/04], he proposes repealing everything. If this sounds extreme, it can be more palatable by using Kristof's approach.
The Third Amendment to the Constitution forbids quartering soldiers in the homes of private citizens. But surely we would be safer from armed robbers if soldiers live in our homes. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause for authorities to get a search warrant before they search our persons or property. But surely the neighborhood would be safer if cops can break into a radical neighbor's house (or maybe yours) anytime they want just to make sure no dangerous publications are available. In order to reduce the chance that that radical neighbor of ours isn't freed on a technicality, surely we'll give up the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and Sixth and Seventh Amendment rights to a trial.
Better yet, let us follow Kristof's example by/sgiving in and letting Wahabbi Muslims govern us. After all, if we're going to throw away part of the First Amendment, why not do the job right?
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.
Comments are currently unavailable on this article