Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: tahiti
"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.
19 posted on 03/24/2005 11:34:31 AM PST by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: NJ_gent
"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,"

But since the Constitution was meant to "limit" GOVERNMENT, not citizens, don't we want it to be specific?

I think that was the idea of the phrase in Amendment I,

"Congress shall make no law..."

in Amemdment IX,

"...shall not...deny or disparage..."

even Amendment XIV

"No State shall make or enforce any law..."

So, that is why I would like to see "sharper" language inserted in Amendment IV.

20 posted on 03/24/2005 3:07:53 PM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson