The 4th Amendment had no teeth until Weeks v United States (1914), which established the exclusionary rule. Namely, that evidence gathered from warrantless/illegal means is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law.

Is there anything in this bill that contravenes Weeks? If so, then the courts will clearly have to weigh in on the legislation.

If not, then this issue is less about the death of the 4th Amendment than it is about the disturbing lack of character in our elected officials who go about masquerading as "leaders" and the "voice of the people".

"Sarah Palin has exactly what this candidacy needs in order to win the election. A vagina, which will be quite helpful in tricking Hilary voters into betraying their party." Now, McCain didn't actually utter these words when he introduced his choice for V.P. But, it's what he was thinking. That is, if you believe the "clairvoyants" decrying his choice as demeaning, insulting tokenism.

Let's grant that Palin is no more experienced than Obama. The implication being if McCain/Palin win in November, there is a chance (let's exaggerate and say a 50% chance) that McCain will be unable to lead and our ultimate commander-in-chief will lack what we consider to be an appropriate amount of experience.

If Obama/Biden win in November, the chance of this becoming a reality approaches something like . . . Oh, I don't know . . . 100%?

The Party Unity Show of last week notwithstanding, the democratic primary was a lot more competitive and lasted a lot longer than Obama supporters wanted. What really stands out for me is this: Obama did NOT have a mandate going into the convention. I rather doubt that a week of rhetoric ensured that he had a mandate coming out.

Clinton supporters (along with the rest of us) don't pull the lever for a little over 2 months. Obama and Biden have that time to keep Hillary supporters on their side (or win them over, in the case of Dem's who weren't convinced this week). If, on the other hand, they take that support for granted and don't make a sustained appeal . . . and enough Hillary supporters indeed defect to McCain . . . well then I guess they deserve the loss.

From that perspective, I have a difficult time empathizing with those who are whining about politics being so . . . political.

Yes, I am confident that the McCain campaign gave considerable weight to the consideration of gender in choosing Palin. Given the fact that there were other names on the table, gender was only one of several considerations. Likewise, I am quite certain that race was a factor when the party machinery decided to field Obama as a candidate. I fail to see much of a difference, other than the fact that women comprise slightly more than 50% of our population.

I seriously doubt that the McCain camp had the integrity of the electoral process in heart or in mind when they made their choice. Similarly, I doubt that democratic attacks on the Palin choice are motivated by such altruistic considerations. Hillary supporters are in play, and the McCain campaign knows this. I suspect Obama's campaign knows it as well. Each campaign will have to appeal to that demographic through both rhetoric and actions. The campaign that does so most effectively will, in my opinion, find themselves front and center on Inauguration Day. That is as it should be.

"Obama called Bristol off limits, and noted that he himself was born to a mother who was only 18 . . . . Obama is setting an example for Democrats, who need to be careful about how they try to use this story.

"Journalists, though, have every right to be asking questions about Palin and her family . . .

" . . . McCain wanted to choose Sen. Joe Lieberman as his running mate . . . he decided he couldn't buck the party masters . . . "

It appears that, since Democrats need to be careful about how they use this story, liberal members of the media will step in as their proxy. Ms. Walsh, are you demonstrating to Mr. McCain how he should have bucked his masters? By refusing to heed Mr. Obama's level-headed request to leave the Bristol story alone? Instead you cite some vague journalistic responsibility to delve into Sarah Palin's private life. Whether you realize it or not--and whether you acknowledge it or not--you have just granted "license" to the fringe elements coming out with outrageous allegations that Bristol is actually the mother of Trig, or that Sarah Palin is a Nazi sympathizer.

Polls show that approval ratings are in the basement for our President and for the institution of Congress. If the media allowed polls to be taken on its own approval ratings, I suspect that the numbers would be around the same level.