[tahiti]

"The invasion of privacy is made reasonable by a warrant signed by a judge and supported by the oath or affirmation of another person."

Well, said. Unfortunately, too many members of this forum think that Amendment IV allows for a search and seizure without a warrant, as long as it is reasonable.

I say we should amend Amendment IV to state,

BECAUSE the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, THEN, warrants MUST BE issued, but ONLY upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That small change in wording would take almost all, if I can be sold bold, all of the ambiguity out of Amendment IV's "original meaning."

[NJ_gent]

"That small change in wording would take almost all, if I can be sold bold, all of the ambiguity out of Amendment IV's "original meaning.""

There's nothing ambiguous about it. Police state advocates will push for their agenda regardless of what the law or the Constitution say. If you make the Constitution so specific that they have no wiggle room, then you've lessoned the effectiveness of the Constitution by narrowing its scope, and the police state lovers will simply come back and say that the Constitution is an ancient document that has no relevance.

Certainly, to some, the liberty of citizens has no relevance.