GUEST COLUMN: CHIPPING AWAY AT AMERICA'S RIGHTS

During the July 4 weekend, the news media were full of statements by people
saying they appreciate our freedom more since Sept. 11.

It's ironic that our freedoms are being eroded, and people have accepted
these erosions in the name of patriotism and security.

Today citizens using public transportation are required to submit to
searches of their persons and possessions, a violation of our Fourth
Amendment rights.

The Fourth Amendment stipulates "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 warrant shall issue, but upon
probable cause . . ."

Granted, people have submitted to this willingly as a price to be paid for
some sense of security, but they have allowed an abridgement of the
strictest interpretation of our Fourth Amendment rights.

Both citizens and non-citizens have been deprived of their Fifth Amendment
rights, held without due process or access to an attorney for extended
periods of time, in the name of the war on terrorism.

Of course, this follows a trend started more than a decade ago.

In the name of the war on drugs, the confiscation of personal property on
the suspicion of possession of drugs, without due process, has been
permitted and upheld, in direct conflict with the Fifth Amendment (" . . .
nor deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor
shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation").

Even in cases in which the person is never convicted, or cases in which the
"drugs" turn out to be something legal (tea, sugar, etc.), the law
enforcement entity responsible for the seizure is under no obligation to
restore or make compensation for the confiscated property.

The First Amendment gives us freedom of speech. In recent weeks there have
been incidents reported by the news in which a person's right to free
speech was curtailed because his audience did not agree with what he was
saying - usually an expression of concern about the abridgment of civil
liberties.

In these days of renewed patriotism, the sentiment "I may not agree with
what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" has been replaced with
"I don't agree with what you are saying, so I will not permit you to say it."

While this reflects personal attitudes and behavior, not law, it is a sad
if not dangerous trend.

The First Amendment also gives us freedom from state-mandated religion.

The discussion in the wake of the appellate court ruling on the
constitutionality of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance clearly
indicates that many people think the First Amendment gives us freedom of
choice of Judeo-Christian religion, but not any other religious choice (and
some would leave out the Judeo part).

Our congressmen gave explicit endorsement to this attitude with their
response the day after the ruling.

The Founding Fathers were extremely careful to keep our Constitution free
of the imposition of religion upon the citizens by the government.

We accept their wisdom on many other points; why not this one?

People may think these are acceptable abridgements of our freedoms, but
they should be aware they are abridgements of the spirit of our
constitutional rights.

And once begun, where does it stop?