>>>The New York Times printed a copy of the Declaration of Independence on a full page today, as I believe they do every July 4. One of the striking things about it is that it consists of only 1320 words, quite remarkable for such a seismic document.
>>
>>Perhaps we'll get lucky and some of our leaders will actually read it for a change.
>
>I think they have read it. They just didn't understand it.

Heck just take a look at the last supreme court decisions from the 2008-2009 session:

DNA TESTING

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that convicts have no constitutional right to test genetic evidence to try to show their innocence. The court said it would not second-guess states or force them routinely to look again at criminal convictions. This decision could have a limited effect because 47 states and the federal government already have laws that allow DNA testing in some circumstances. William Osborne, convicted in a brutal assault on a prostitute in Alaska 16 years ago, sued for the right to test the contents of a blue condom the victim says was used by her attacker. Decided on June 18, 2009.


LAWYER REQUEST

The Supreme Court overturned a long-standing ruling that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer was present, a move that will make it easier for prosecutors to interrogate suspects. The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The court's opinion said the decision will have "minimal" effects on criminal defendants because of the protections the court has provided in other decisions. Decided on May 26, 2009.

EVIDENCE

The Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained after illegal searches or arrests based on simple police mistakes may be used to prosecute criminal defendants. The justices voted 5-4 to apply new limits to a rule requiring evidence to be suppressed if it results from a violation of a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches or seizure. Justices acknowledged that the arrest of Bennie Dean Herring - based on the mistaken belief that there was a warrant for his arrest - violated his constitutional rights, yet upheld his conviction on federal drug and gun charges. Decided on Jan. 14, 2009.


BROADCAST INDECENCY

The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a government policy that threatens broadcasters with fines over the use of even a single curse word on live television. The court, however, stopped short of deciding whether the policy violates the Constitution. By a 5-4 vote, the court threw out a lower court ruling that said the agency could not now start levying large fines for the type of fleeting expletives that it had let slide for years. This was the Supreme Court's first major broadcast indecency case in 30 years. Decided April 28, 2009.

...rights? hey we don't need no stikin rights! So now it looks like you could get arrested after an illegal search, ask for a lawyer and get questioned anyway - then if you get nailed for a crime (even if you didn't do it) you can't prove your innocence with DNA and if you get on TV and say one naughty word about it the broadcaster gets busted too. What is happening to my country? geeeze!