Who needs the Fourth Amendment?

Back a few months ago, the Democrat-controlled Congress wanted a vacation, so they decided to give President Bush what he wanted. Because there's no better way to keep someone in check better than giving him exactly what he wants. I know it works for my children. Congress did, however, put a time limit on the bill, the Protect America Act, which allowed the Executive Branch to eavesdrop on American People's conversations without first securing a warrant, thus bypassing the judicial oversight demanded by the Fourth Amendment for searches of the American People.

Pretending for just a moment that such a law is, in fact, Constitutional (and this should take a lot of imagination, but this President has been creative with his Constitutional interpretations in the past), let's say it's a good thing the Legislative branch put a time limit on the law, if for no other reason than to gauge its implementation.

Well, President Bush, who apparently was saving all his ink from 2001-2006 by vetoing nothing, now needs to use that ink. And the Decider decided that the new bill presented by the Democratic-majority Congress, the Congress with whom he agreed to work with, because he's a uniter, not a divider, needed the threat of veto, because it does not grant immunity to those telecommunications companies that assisted the Executive in eavesdropping on American People.

This is an interesting concept. The President, who swore to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, apparently believes that the best way to do so is grant clemency to those parties who help him violate the Constitution of the United States. And he has just enough sycophants in Congress to help ensure that the bill does not get overridden, and the Democrats in Congress, weak as they are, will knuckle under yet again. Because it's better to sacrifice not just the liberties of their Constituents, but the Constitution itself than to be labeled "soft on terror."