Did George Violate the Fourth Amendment Rights of Some Philadelphians?

By: Bruce S. Ticker

Dubya visited my town last week and injected police-state tactics into the lives of some of my fellow Philadelphians.

These tactics raise questions as to whether their Fourth Amendment rights over search and seizure were violated.

George flew to the city to announce his new faith-based directive and rebuke Trent Lott for embracing Strom Thurmond's 1948 pro-segregation presidential campaign platform.

Yet in practice he treated the mostly black neighborhood he visited like a World War II Polish village invaded by the Nazis.

At 8 AM Thursday, Dec. 12, Hattie Thelmon had to leave her bed in her North Philadelphia home when a police officer rapped on her door and rang her doorbell. He told her to move her car or risk being towed.

"Everybody had to scramble", she told a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter.

Her neighbors, some dressed in bed clothes, had to run to move their vehicles from the streets around Good Hope Baptist Church where Bush spoke.

"There were never any signs", she said. "The tow truck pulled cars from everywhere all around here."

Erik Goelz, a sophomore at Temple University, was among at least a dozen other people who found their vehicles ticketed, towed, and reparked blocks away, according to the Inquirer. When he found his car, Goetzalso found a $25 ticket.

Let's get this straight. A resident parks his car in a legal spot, the car is towed away for supposed security reasons and now he has to pay for it?

Does that make sense to you? Oh, never mind.

Far more important, these folks may well have been deprived of their Fourth Amendment rights. Here's the text of it:

"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."

How secure in their houses could these people be if they must rush out of the house first thing in the morning?

What was so reasonable about seizing people's cars? What was so pressing for the President to speak in a residential neighborhood?

What warrants were even issued to seize these cars? What probable cause?

Is it just me or were their civil rights violated? Maybe they should get some legal advice with the intent to sue George.

This may be the way they do business in Texas, but this neighborhood is a 20-minute subway ride from Independence Hall.

On Cheney: Who's Encroaching on Who?

Dick Cheney has a different take on the constitutional separation of powers than I do. The New York Times last week quoted from a CNN interview in which he said "there has been a constant, steady erosion of the prerogatives and the power of the Oval Office and a continual encroachment by Congress".

That's news to me. The Constitution spells out the authority of Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court. It has been that way for more than two centuries and can only be changed by a constitutional amendment. If a new amendment went into effect recently to change that, I must have missed it.

It sounds like Cheney and George W. Bush are not content to command a vast bureaucracy that includes a few million federal employees; the most powerful military force in the world; a web of law-enforcement and intelligence-gathering agencies; and the power to nominate hundreds of federal judges just itching to mess with our civil rights even more.

Not only that, but we all know that Cheney runs Bush, too.

The GOP Idea of Principle

William Bennett, a conservative blowhard from the Reagan regime, said on Hardball that Trent Lott violated basic "Republican principle". It must be: Don't get caught.

George Must Be Confident About 2004

George W. Bush must be confident that he'll win re-election.

Al Gore's decision to drop out of the presidential race will allow for someone who is alive to run against Bush.

Lots of liberals won't like that crack, but there is double meaning to use of the word "alive". Remember Paul Wellstone?

It's my guess that Team Bush thought it did not need to threaten Gore's life to remain in the race and so prevent a livelier - there's that word again - Democrat from running against George.

Don't get me wrong. I'm thinking in terms of political strategy, not statesmanlike quality. Gore would certainly have been a far better President than Bush - more than just by default. However, he proved to be a weak candidate on the national stage and I fear that he has a less than even chance of winning in 2004.

Gore's losing the job was unfair not only to him but to any citizen who hoped this country would draw closer to reaching its potential.

If for some reason Gore does enter the race, I'll be as happy as anyone if he takes up residence in the White House on Jan. 20, 2005.

Quoth the Mavens

New Jersey state Senate co-president John O. Bennett in an Associated Press report: "It's important that we not craft legislation based on inaccurate information."

Since when did that stop Republicans?

Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, in the Philadelphia Inquirer: "The President did Trent Lott a big favor today. He basically cleared the air... This is not an issue that divides us any more." If you say so, Rick.

William Kristol, editor of the mindless Weekly Standard, quoted in the New York Times, said Lott was "thoughtless". If anyone knows, he does. He once worked for Dan Quayle.

Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who once marched with Martin Luther King, said in the Times that he was "shocked and chagrined". Could Lewis have been the model for Kramer's lawyer? Seinfeld fans know what I'm talking about.