I just am pleased to come to the well right at this point, because I think it helps show why we feel H.R. 666 is a radical diversion from the Constitution and really is trashing it. Right now Americans are basically protected from illegal searches and seizures by the fact that, yes, or course, today the FBI or the BATF or the local police could come and go through your house, your car, whatever, without a warrant. But if they find anything, they could not use it against you. Therefore, that is a real inhibitor. Why would you, as a FBI agent or BATF or a police officer, go running through, stopping people illegally or searching homes illegally if you could not use it to prosecute? The idea being now, if you want to prosecute someone and you have cause, you go get a warrant and then you go get it. If you take away that, which is what this bill does--this bill says if they come through your house, if they come through your car, if they do not have a warrant and the find anything, they could still use it-- why would anybody go get a warrant? Why would anybody go get a warrant? This is Monday morning quarterbacking, then.…
Patricia Schroeder: “I just am pleased to come to the well right at this point, because I think it helps show why we feel H.R. 666 is a…”
Editor's note · Context
Opposing H.R. 666 and discussing its implications for constitutional protections against illegal searches.
Share
More from Patricia Schroeder
as I prepare to retire I understand there are some wags around here who keep saying that will be a big mouth to fill. But this is a day when I am very proud of my big mouth and I am very proud of the results that we have seen, because the…
The reason I feel the EEOC is very different from other regulatory agencies is we have piled a bigger and bigger workload on them. If we are going to pile a bigger workload on a regulatory agency but treat it the same as SEC when it has a…
Mr. Speaker, I think what we have just heard in this colloquy is why we ought to vote against this rule and get this bill out of here. We hear about cruel and unusual punishment, but this is going to be cruel and outrageous legislation…
I was really pleased to hear the Speaker say he did not have an objection to it, and was wondering, since it appears to have been cleared and so noncontroversial, could we get it out and could we get it passed?





