I love the darting part. Maybe they will dart a few bicyclists in the butt with a GPS unit to see how many stop lights they blow.

I really appreciate the feds telling me when I should and should not expect to have a constitutional right to privacy.

Since restrictions on birth control were struck down in Griswold v. Connecticut due to the constitutional right to privacy, should we interpret the fed's latest comments to mean that a state could, say, restrict the usage of birth control in hotel rooms? After all, if a person's car can be tagged with a GPS sensor in such a locale because a person should not expect to have privacy in such a setting...

We're from the federal government and we are here to trample your rights... We no longer recognize the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..

This is the stuff we should be focusing on: The erosion of liberties in America. It's truly shocking and there's a clear plan to strip us of any meaningful privacy or freedom. It's done incrementally so nobody protests too much. President Obama ran on the professor-of-the-constitution routine and apparently he should have taken some of his own classes.
You know what was unbelievably galling this morning? Hearing Mary Matalin on the radio describing herself as a "constitutional common sense conservative." That's code for "I can't say I'm in the Tea Party but I want to cater to them." Mary Matalin was an assistant to President Bush and Dick Cheney during some of the most anti-constitutional times in American History including the complete override of our system of checks and balances and 3 branches of government.
The hope was that President Obama would eliminate W's policy of authoritarian rule, return to a constitutional approach, and curb these violations of our freedom, but he shows few signs of doing that, and that's a real problem.

Bill is really on to something here. But it's more than privacy, it's executive power. Bush was bad, but Obama is worse. And whoever is next will be worse than Obama. That's the thing, each President creeps more and more into Imperial Presidency territory. By the type we notice, it will too late. By the time we care, it will be way too late.

Since restrictions on birth control were struck down in Griswold v. Connecticut due to the constitutional right to privacy, should we interpret the fed's latest comments to mean that a state could, say, restrict the usage of birth control in hotel rooms?

Ha! Maybe the feds could attach tracking devices to condoms given away by public health agencies?!?

I think the court would find away to keep those prenumbrae (sp?) separated.

Whatever the case, J. Edgar Hoover is chortling in his grave.

I am beginning to think that the idea of "Divided We Stand, United We Fail" might be the way to go in this next election. Nothing good happens with one-party rule. Time to put up some roadblocks.

Bush was bad, but Obama is worse.

On civil liberties? Really?

The thing I found interesting about the whole bugging incident is that the federal government has classified private property as subject to their jurisdiction/access for some time. The best example I can give, relates to the trucking industry, many regulations apply to operations on highway, but look how highway is defined: "Highway means any road, street, or way, whether on public or private property, open to public travel. “Open to public travel” means that the road section is available, except during scheduled periods, extreme weather or emergency conditions, passable by four-wheel standard passenger cars, and open to the general public for use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs, or regulation etc" It wouldn't surprise me if other federal agencies followed similar definitions.

President Windsock.