In the eyes of some, Hillary Clinton can do no wrong. If she supports repealing the Fourth Amendment, thereby allowing the government to search homes without a warrant and seize property because they feel like it, well, it must be good.

Several Hillary Clinton supporters were asked if they endorsed Clinton’s supposed plan to repeal the Fourth Amendment in an effort “to help modernize the government.”

“I’m supporting Hillary in anything she wants to do,” one woman said. “And Barack Obama.”

“Anything she wants to do,” reporter Mark Dice asked. “Yes, I think she’s going to make a good president,” the woman replied. We’ll check back with her when government agents bust down her door without a warrant.

“Sure, why not,” another woman responded when asked the question. But she clearly didn’t want to be bothered by thinking about her rights when she was just trying to get some sun.

“I’m just chillin’ right now. I support Hillary.”

“It should have been done a long time ago,” another respondent said.

Several people interviewed by Dice had no clue what the Fourth Amendment restricts the government from doing, and therefore couldn’t articulate whether they supported surrendering the right.

“I’m not too familiar with her policy or her, I guess, plan for her upcoming, but — I honestly couldn’t tell you. That’s not my forte,” one man said.

Hillary’s supporters have advocates in Congress. Earlier this year, Maine Sen. Angus King argued the Fourth Amendment “isn’t absolute,” CNS News reported.

In attempting to revise the USA Patriot Act, the Senate “is trying to balance” its national security responsibility with the Fourth Amendment and privacy rights, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday.

“But the Fourth Amendment isn’t absolute,” he insisted. “It said people shall be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. We are always trying to strike the balance between those two principles, in light of risks and in light of technology.” …

King told CNN he “strongly” advocates protecting Americans’ privacy rights. But — “we also have to be aware that we are under a threat. And it strikes me as an unusual position for Senator Paul, for example, to be talking about essentially unilaterally disarming an important national security tool at a time when I have never seen the threat level higher.”