Patriotic Federalist

Alexander’s Essay – January 13, 2011

Tragedy to Triumph, Democrat Style

“Necessity, especially in politics, often occasions false hopes, false reasonings and a system of measures, correspondently erroneous.” –Alexander Hamilton

Do targets incite violence?

Federal Judge John Roll, a Republican recommended for the bench by Sen. John McCain and nominated by President George H. W. Bush, was among six citizens murdered by a psychopath in Tucson on Saturday. Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was among 14 wounded, and her recovery prospects are promising.

These deaths and injuries are an incalculable tragedy, and equally so are the deaths and injuries of thousands of other violent crime victims each year.

Rep. Giffords is a moderate Democrat and a self-described “strong supporter of the Second Amendment.” That notwithstanding, the Democrat Party has already undertaken to convert the Tucson crisis into political fodder for “gun control” and “hate speech” legislation, and a “national conversation” with the objective of silencing conservative political speech.

A gun did not commit the Tucson attack, as the Left would like you to believe; the perpetrator was a mentally deranged 22-year-old, Jared Lee Loughner, who chose to use a gun rather than some other method to orchestrate his mayhem.
Continue reading

Coming from the left wing California courts as expected….

On Monday the Supreme Court of California whittled away some of the Fourth Amendment when they ruled that the police may search an arrestee’s cell phone without a warrant. The 5-2 majority, led by Justice Ming Chin, claimed that under precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1970s, defendants lose their right to privacy regarding objects in their possession at the time of arrest. Chin cited cases that, among other things, allowed law enforcement to seize and search a pack of cigarettes. But there’s a far cry between a pack of smokes (which could conceivably contain drugs or a razor blade) and a cell phone that, first, is clearly not a weapon, and second, contains a massive quantity of personal information.
The legal system has not yet caught up to our ever-changing technology, and there are some judges who are using the opportunity to erode our personal freedom. This is not the first time the issue has come up, either. In 2007 and 2009, courts in California and Ohio respectively found that the defendants’ rights were violated, leading experts to believe that the Supreme Court will eventually weigh in on warrantless cell phone searches.