The Fourth Amendment, which assures that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," was included in the Bill of Rights in response to the oppressive way British soldiers treated American colonists through their use of "Writs of Assistance." These were court orders that authorized British agents to conduct general searches of premises for contraband. The exact nature of the materials being sought did not have to be detailed, nor did their locations. The powerful new court orders enabled government officials to inspect not only shops and warehouses, but also private homes. These searches resulted in the violation of many of the colonists' rights and the destruction of much of the colonists' personal property. It quickly became apparent to many colonists that their homes were no longer their castles.

Fast-forward 250 years and we seem to be right back where we started, living in an era of oppressive government policies and a militarized police whose unauthorized, forceful intrusions into our homes and our lives have been increasingly condoned by the courts. Indeed, two recent court decisions - one from the U.S. Supreme Court and the other from the Indiana Supreme Court, both handed down in the same week - sound the death knell for our Fourth Amendment rights.

The stalemate at the Iowa Statehouse took on a new tone Tuesday, as Senate Democrats began taking their show on the road with a statewide tour to get the public involved.

"It's time for Iowans to get involved," said state Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs). "We have people in this building that will not listen. The only way you're going to break this impasse isn't amongst the players up here. We're in the 130th day, almost, of the session. It's not going to be broken inside this building. It's going to be broken by Iowans stepping up to the plate and calling the governor and telling him [that] zero [funding growth] for local schools is unacceptable."

Governor Terry Branstad on Tuesday announced his own tour of the state. He and Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds will next week hold a series of town-hall meetings in New Hampton, Cresco, Waukon, Elkader, Oelwein, and Independence.

Do parents have a right to control the upbringing of their children, especially when it comes to what their children should be exposed to in terms of sexual practices and intimate relationships?

That question goes to the heart of the battle being played out in school districts and courts across America right now over parental rights and whether parents essentially forfeit those rights when they send their children to a public school. On one side of the debate are those who believe, as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, that "the child is not the mere creature of the state" and that the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the U.S. Constitution. On the other side are government officials who not only believe, as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Fields V. Palmdale School District PSD (2005), that "[s]chools cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral, or religious concerns of every parent," but go so far as to insist that parents' rights do "not extend beyond the threshold of the school door."

A recent incident in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, clearly illustrates this growing tension over whether young people, especially those in the public schools, are wards of the state, to do with as government officials deem appropriate, in defiance of the children's constitutional rights and those of their parents. On two separate occasions this year, students at Memorial Middle School in Fitchburg were administered surveys at school asking overtly intimate and sexually suggestive questions without their parents' knowledge or consent. Students were required to complete the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) at school, a survey that asks questions such as "Have you ever tried to kill yourself?", "Have you ever sniffed glue, or breathed the contents of spray cans, or inhaled any paints?", and "With how many people have you had sexual intercourse?" Older students were also given the Youth Program Survey, which asks true/false questions about a student's beliefs about contraception ("I feel comfortable talking with any partner I have about using a condom") and sexual activity ("I have had oral sex at some point in my life").

Every four years, we citizens of Iowa must endure a bevy of presidential hopefuls presenting tax proposals. These proposals have a few things in common: (1) They're long, complex, and full of details; (2) Pundits attack the details; (3) Iowa voters don't read the details; and (4) They never become law as written.

Perhaps this cycle will be different. Perhaps, rather than long and complex proposals, the candidates will simply articulate their fundamental beliefs of what a tax policy should be. Then if elected, these principles can be the foundation on which the tax code is written.

Will this happen? It's doubtful, but in a triumph of hope over experience, let me offer the following five tax-policy principles as a guide.