Editor, The Intelligencer

1500 Main Street

Wheeling, WV 26003

Dear Sir:

Well, it has happened again. Referencing an Associated Press article that appeared in the Tuesday, March 5 Intelligencer: "High Court Expands Power to Seize Property", I am submitting the following commentary. After reading the article, I had a few question come to mind. Why is there not a terrific outcry on the part of the national media against this naked grab for power on the part of this government? And why would a supposedly "free people" put up with this kind of sordid and despotic action on the part of the liberal wing rajahs in black robes? Are our criminal elements the only ones who are going to get upset about this? Can't anyone out there see the ominous and sinister portents a move like this has for individual rights and freedom? Maybe we should put aside our differences and join forces on this one.

On the face of it, we might not be hopelessly throttled by the liberal wing as there were at least the minority opinion justices making some kind of effort to protect the innocent civilian populace from the grab-it-first-and-fight-about-the-legality-later' crew presently running things. I am just sort of amazed that an issue of such portent does not generate a howl of protest that would work its way past the liberal ear wax lining all of the administrative ears in Washington.

Chief Justice Rehnquist and his buddies "expanded police power to seize property owned, at least in part, by innocent people"...on the face of it, that simply means that whatever rights an innocent person might have had before the Rehnquist court, they're all gone now! Of the justices opposing Rhenquist's poobahs, look at a statement attributed to Justice Stevens: "Fundamental fairness prohibits the punishment of innocent people". I'll bet that a great majority of us folks out here feel this might be the way it was meant to be by the framers of our constitution. Fundamental fairness is evidently NOT rated very highly on the priority list of the Supreme Court these days. I guess that lack of awareness of individual rights is a common tendency in justices appointed from stables of high priced legal beagles who have lost all connection with the average citizenry. Haughtiness has presumably become a standard requirement for being a justice of our supreme court. Once these select individuals adopt the belief that they are the only ones capable of understanding and interpreting what our founding fathers intended by the Constitution, the citizenry loses at every turn of the screw.

To many of us, the Constitution means what it says. The language is clear, concise, and wonderfully lacking in the nuance our justices seem to see behind every word. This document was written for the common man, and to be understandable to the common man. Our founding fathers had to deal with them every day. Had a slippery constitution been composed in those days, we might occasionally see some historic references to it as a failed and meaningless document attributed to a group of self-serving colonial rebels. After that, we would glance at the portrait of the Queen on the wall and wonder what that period of time was really like.

This stuff is much too important to let a cadre of social engineers dabble with it at their whim, or as their bosses order. Read it for yourself. The important parts are contained in three of the articles in the Bill of Rights. If you can see where it says anything about confiscating the property of innocent citizens as our Supreme Court justices just decided, be sure to underline the passage and send it to me.

Amendment IV (1791)

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.

Amendment V (1791)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI (1791)