DISCUSSION OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT
To The United States ConstitutionAmendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Rich's Rants
Face it, the constitution was trampled to death many a moon ago. Ask any Indian. Do the words "Congress shall pass no law..." ring a bell? How about "...shall not be infringed"? How about "reasonable" searches do not require a search warrant? Or, the "accused will enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial"? Remember when the constitution prevented the taking of private land to build a WalMart? Or, to take an exclusive high-brow golf course and open it to the public? Our govt has made a mockery of the constitution. By the time they get thru, we will welcome the unelected ministers of the North American Union.The 4th, IMHO, began to get murky, even back then. What does "effects" include in the first clause? Does effects cover telegrams, phone & internet service? What about offices, computers, backyard sheds and warehouses? Are they exempt?
And for God's sake, what is "unreasonable"? What happens when the govt violates these rights? See what I mean. Murky wiggle room.
The 2nd half isn't much better: Before govt can search it must show probable cause, be supported by oath or affirmation* and describe the place and person(s) to be searched or seized. What if a legal search discovers other illegal activity? What if the illegal activity was discovered but search was found to be "unreasonable" after the fact?
We know that in Marbury vs Madison, the Supreme Court declared itself the arbiter of some of these problems. For instance, if a search is illegal, everything discovered as a result of that violation of the 4th, cannot be presented in a court of law. Seems reasonable---until you think about it. The crimes of both the target of the warrant and the violator of the Supreme Law of the Land cancel each other out. Huh? I don't think so.
Since when do two wrongs make a right? No harm no foul? This ain't the NBA. What they did was compound the problem. They exonerated 2 perps so as not of prosecute one of their own. Seems to me both law breakers should be punished for their crimes, donchya think?~Rich Slick
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=240170
* The legal definition of affirmation is: A solemn declaration made under the penalties of perjury, by persons who conscientiously decline taking an oath; which affirmation is in law equivalent to testimony given under oath. Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary)
Even if it weren't fraught with dangerous, and some down-right bad, things, this amendment is too much of a grabbag to support. If the lege were passing a statute, including a tax statute, the State Constitution limits them to a single subject in each bill (preventing some of the outrageous riders we see in Federal legislation). The voters should hold them to the same limitation on proposed amendments.
Not only that, we don't need no freakin' prisons. Take the dopers out and make some of the other sentences more reasonable and we would have prison beds to spare. Remember, each bed takes about $20,000 or more in staff salaries, food, medical care, etc. each year; so each additional prison shoots another big hole in the state budget. Some of those "small government, low taxes" Republics should think about that while they're being "tough on crime".
~Buford Terrell
"As Long As You're Not Doing Anything Wrong, You Have Nothing To Worry About"
Tired cliche to cover big brother
Steve Watson
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
I am personally sick of hearing the above phrase used whenever the latest surveillance tool is trotted out and used on the public as a means of control. It's worn out and doesn't work anymore. People are finally beginning to stop laughing at the madness of the big brother society, but will it be too late when people begin to see the seriousness of the threat?
Endlessly used as an excuse to pass into everyday use policies and technology that are eroding our freedoms and giving our governments more control and responsibility over our lives are phrases such as "Why worry if you have nothing to hide?"
Since when were long established civil liberties and the citizen's right to privacy replaced with this "new freedom", this "freedom lite" shall we call it, this guilty until proven innocent mantra?
The problem lies with what is considered to be "something to hide". I don't want to be filmed 24 hours a day, everywhere I go, does that mean I've got something to hide? I don't much like the idea of being fingerprinted if i want to go into a bar, does that mean I have got something to hide? Yes, if I am an enemy of the gestapo in the 1930s, but no if I am a free citizen in 21st century Britain or America.
