Hunter Violates His Oath…Again

Eric Andersen Eric Andersen 20 Comments


David BrooksHouse leaders rushed through HR5602 Monday evening under suspension of the rules, thus limiting debate and amendments from being considered.

H.R. 5602 violates our Fourth Amendment-secured right against unreasonable searches and seizures. With limited exception, a search or seizure is unreasonable if it occurs without probable cause and a warrant. Yet, HR5602 contains a provision that expands the Department of the Treasury’s ability to issue blanket demands for information without probable cause and a warrant.

Pardon me, but is our Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure a right granted by our Creator or a privilege granted by the king?

Congressman Duncan Hunter agreed with co-sponsor Maxine Waters (D-CA 43rd) and voted with Nancy Pelosi and Scott Peters,  upholding the view that our Fourth Amendment rights are privileges granted by the king.

Congressmen Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Tom McClintock and Dana Rohrabacher voted against HR5602, taking the position our rights are inalienable and are granted by our Creator.

Hunter won his June primary by 37 points thanks to a $3,000 a month campaign director, his wife Margaret. He is in a safe and conservative seat. He should be taking advantage of his position by leading and raining all hell on Democrats and RINOs for their big government legislation. Unfortunately, he is doing no such thing and his unconstitutional votes are encroaching on our freedom more than any radical Muslim could hope. What does the 50th District have to show for Hunter?

White House staffers in their 15th biennial survey “The Best & Worst of Congress” voted the congressman the biggest ‘Party Animal’ and he is currently under investigation by the FEC for campaign finance fraud.

I have been asked to speak Saturday at Libertyfest. I now have my topic – “We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident”.


Eric Andersen is a member of the Central Committee of the San Diego County Republican Party and current Chair and Co-Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus of San Diego County. He is a Co-Founder of, former Rock Church Citizen of the Year and former Caucus Chair for the 71st Assembly District.


Comments 20

  1. Our Fourth Amendment rights keeping us free from search unless ordered by a judge came from our Creator? Seriously?

  2. HQ:
    Ever read the Declaration of Independence? How passé, those dumb beliefs of the Founders.

  3. It’s ironic that Hunter can take away what the Creator gave us. He must have awesome powers.

  4. Spin Zone,

    The Fourth Amendment is found in the Constitution, not in the Declaration of Independence and not in the Bible.

  5. Hypocrisy, thanks for taking time off from your work with BLM to weigh in on something you care nothing about, the American citizen’s freedoms.

  6. Dan,

    I care at least as much about all of our freedoms as you do and I fear losing them when someone claims that these freedoms come not from the people but from a particular “creator,” one who I supposedly have the freedom not to even believe in.

    Belief in divine right is a wonderful thing, if you get to choose the divinity. As we have learned, when others choose the divinity and get to interpret his will, non-believers start losing those freedoms you profess to cherish.

  7. Post

    HQ – Our founders, not all believers, posited a legal system based upon “the laws of nature and Nature’s God”. A system that would appeal to believer and unbeliever alike. What the unbeliever sees indirectly in nature the believer sees directly revealed in Scripture. The idea being that law is discovered in nature (i.e. natural law) as opposed to law originating in man (case law, precedent).

    You have proposed a problem but haven’t supported it. Given that the divinity most Framers recognized was that which was revealed in Christ, please explain the conflict.

    As for me, if law originates in man, as you say, whose opinion are we going to follow, yours or mine? Seems to me your law system ultimately leads to tyranny and whomever has the most power.

  8. Eric,

    I don’t see anything in the laws of nature requiring a judge (appointed or elected by man) to issue a warrant before a person can be searched. Where I do find that is in the Constitution, a document proposed, written and ratified by men.

    The Constitution, not the Bible, is the legal framework that we live by in this country. The beauty of it is that it can be changed, again by man with no divinity involved, but it cannot be changed easily which minimizes the potential of mob rule based on the passions of the moment.

  9. Post

    You haven’t supported your statement. Where do you see a conflict between natural rights and the faith of some of our Framer’s? What are you threatened by?

  10. Most of the “Framers” were the offspring of the first wave of white immigrants to America. They left Europe due to religious persecution.
    They were persecuted by other Christians for not being the right kind of Christian. If Christians can’t agree on who the real God is please explain who gave me my rights again? Do you really want prayer in public schools or just the kind your particular sect approves of?

  11. Eric,

    I actually think I did a very good job of supporting my statement so let me just answer your last question. I am threatened by anyone who believes that a particular religious belief should be used to justify any secular law. If you are not threatened by that, then you haven’t been paying attention to all that is happening in the world.

    To put it another way, criticize Congressman Hunter for voting for a law that violates the Constitution. Do not criticize him for voting for a law that would violate the will of “The Creator.”

  12. Post

    The 4th Amendment addresses “Search and Seizure”.

    Your critique of my reference to a ‘Creator’ is sad as you are critiquing the very term used by our Framers and the basis of our legal system. Quite a radical position.

    It makes no difference to me whether you posit a “Creator” but don’t assume for a moment that the basis of our law system doesn’t draw in part from the historic Christian faith and that you are the only audience to whom I am writing.

    Are you saying I am not allowed to refer to believers on Rostra? Only atheists and agnostics?

    For what it’s worth, the subject of this post taught the Constitution at Skyline Community Church shortly after he was elected.

    You still have not provided a biblical example where orthodox Christianity infringes on a secular law. Until I see you posting a particular law that you believe is supported by the Bible your statement is unsupported in my eyes.

  13. Laws supported by the bible, seriously? We used to force stores to be closed on Sundays. How about the previous ban on same sex marriage?

    As for religion being the basis of our legal system, I have no doubt that the Framers were influenced by their religious beliefs as I am sure they were influenced by all of their life experiences. However, don’t you find it instructive that the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, does not mention God, except as a way to describe the date of ratification.

  14. Revisionist history Hypocrisy. No absolute truths in your life, only shades of gray to match your lack of morals that change on a daily basis. Nothing good and pure in your lives. This is why I abhor leftists.

  15. Dan,

    Two questions for you:

    Why do you feel qualified to judge my moral character or whether I have anything “good and pure” in my life despite the fact that you do not know me?

    What did I say that you would classify as “revisionist history?”

  16. I know you by the “fruits of your spirit”. IMHO, the fruits of your spirit do not lift man up but rather lift government up. Your values seem to be derived from government fiat, which as the Japanese say “aki no sora desu”, changes with the Fall wind.

    Eric explained things well. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, based on Christian values by Bible-believing men, was designed to set in stone, the God-given rights of Americans, and to protect Americans from government.

  17. Post

    There is no law in the NT (New Testament) requiring civil government to enforce laws governing the jurisdiction of the church. Two separate governments. For someone not familiar with Christian theology I would quote Christ … “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God …”, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

    While same sex marriage is unbiblical the church is not allowed to use the State to advance the kingdom. Christ, the Prince of Peace, and coercion are two incompatible ideas.

    You have found fault with the practice of some individuals but not with Christianity. An important distinction. Christ’s nature is defensive and as such a progressive application of law is incoherent on its face.

    The Constitution “constitutes”, puts into legal form, the ideas embodied in the Declaration where God is referenced five times. It is the chassis for upholding self-evident truths and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

  18. Eric,

    I have no issue with any religion, but I I certainly do have concerns with individuals, especially those with the power to write laws, and their interpretation of religion and their belief that everyone should live by that interpretation.

    Obviously not every Christian believes in your interpretation of Christianity just like (obviously) not every Muslim believes that Islam is a religion of peace. When people start using religion as justification for secular law (same sex marriage is only the most obvious example), problems ensue.

    Again, I have no issue with anyone having strong religious beliefs or anyone living their life according to those beliefs. I don’t even have a problem with religious beliefs being so ingrained in who an elected official is that it is inevitable that his/her legislating incorporates those beliefs. My problem is when the legislator actually justifies the law or someone criticizes the law based on an interpretation of what the ” the creator wanted.”

    And just for the record, the Constitution is law; the Declaration of Independence is not. I think it is very instructive that the Framers did not mention God in the law.

  19. Post

    I think we have fleshed out the important issue, people like me misapplying Scripture in a way that is inconsistent with the nature of Christ. Are we guilty? Absolutely. You would be surprised how many Christian leaders can’t support positions they are quite outspoken on.

    I too am concerned by the inconsistent manner we present Christ and his teaching on government. Ever seen a Christian who is outspokenly pro-life while supporting foreign intervention?

    There is nothing wrong with using Scripture to justify law and it’s proper application. Nature only gives us an indirect and dim view. Scripture gives us a more detailed and direct view. Man is fallible. The Creator is not. I will give Islam credibility once Mohammed can be shown to have done the things Christ did (fulfill prophecy, perform miracles, rise from the dead etc…)in front of eyewitnesses. Peace.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.