Hillary's Course on Constituional Law

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday called President Bush's explanations for eavesdropping on domestic telephone calls 'strange' and 'far-fetched,' launching a blistering attack on the White House ahead of the president's State of the Union address.

'Obviously, I support tracking down terrorists. I think that's our obligation. But I think it can be done in a lawful way," the New York Democrat said.' " According to the Associated Press.

Well, isn't that interesting. Hillary Clinton says that his explainations are "strange" and "far-fetched." And not only that she has the audacity to say that what President Bush is doing is illegal. Well, lets take a little look into Hillary's past. Does she have an explaination for posessing hundreds of FBI files of federal government workers; people who are NOT terrorists? Was that legal? I think not. Oh, but I forgot, democrats are always working for the common good so even if their actions not only intrude into innocent peoples' personal affairs and are illegal, it's ok.

And I have one last thing to say about this "scandal" inasmuch as it is getting quite tiresome. In the fourth ammendment of the constitution states, "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." Well, lets look at the facts. President Bush has probable cause to put wiretaps on suspected terrorists. Also, phone conversations do not belong to the people. The phone a person talks to belongs to that person, but the phone lines belong to the phone company. This makes the conversations on the wires part of the public domain, therefore, giving the government the ability to listen to them without a warrant. But, the constitution doesn't really matter. Where is the ACLU?