What is it with this aversion to warrants?

Seriously, it's such a slap in the face when there's already a working channel for the government to utilize in order to perform searches and other functions "necessary" (yeah) for the security of its citizens. It's not like they cannot ever do any sort of searches should reasonable suspicion be there. But of course, they just have to try to work around that so-called inconvenience; and for what purpose? Whatever the purpose the end result is a weakening of the rights of Americans themselves, with little to no benefit for the oh-so-important "National Security" (blanket argument for everything, I guess). Nice intention, Mr. President. I'm not one of the forty million-something Bush-bashers but I'll have to raise my middle finger to you this time.

And then there's the Fourth Amendment to boot. Something, oh, about no unreasonable searches and seizures and those done ought to be with warrants. But of course, with all the mumbo-jumbo of laws and the vagueness of the Constitution I'm sure they already came up with a "good" case that it is in fact all legally justified; and nooo, the founders didn't mean what they wrote down in the Bill of Rights.

Oh, and I don't believe I came up with any clauses in the Constitution where it says that the government can go around bashing people's doors without warrants. Except may be that old damnable "Elastic Clause" that has been abused continuously since, well, forever.