You keep attempting to compare this to your wife’s ability to have guests over without your permission.
Apples and pianos-—not even a close comparison.
You are lending support to that position, as you are arguing that one “occupant’s” say so overrides another’s to allow government employees to search the premises.
Such a position is completely antithetical to the anti-federalists, who sought to limit the power and authority of the federal government, and to the position espoused by James Otis, John Adams and others, that a man’s (or woman’s home is his castle, and that liberty is one to be appropriately defended and cherished.
It is a position to which our forefathers gave their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
The problem wasn’t ultimately writs of assistance. The problem was a tyrannical government willing to deny the colonists the basic liberties held dearly even in English law in those days. James Otis fought against them in court because that was the form in which the danger materialized itself rather heinously in his day. Dismissing his arguments because we no longer have writs of assistance is intellectually dishonest.
Those same principles are at stake today, you are actively advocating against liberty. You are attempting to justify the loss of liberty via previous abuses. Your join date signifies only a join date, and is a refuge of one who cannot argue his position from the constitution or from the writings of the founders.
This will be abused.
Innocent people will be arrested over this.
Freepers’ lives will be affected.
It’s clear you’ve already chosen to whisper the soothing falsehood. “tis no danger, Sleep on, fellow patriots, only liberals need fear this.”
A wise man sees danger, does not deny its existence, and takes measures to prepare for the trouble ahead. He also warns others, that they may have the opportunity to prepare and not be off guard.
If one child will not cry himself to sleep because his father was arrested on false pretenses, if one wife will not mourn the loss of her husband, if one mother is able to embrace her family, none missing, imprisoned, wounded, or deceased, the warning is worth it.
Think long and hard about how much you value liberty.
“It’s clear you’ve already chosen to whisper the soothing falsehood. “tis no danger, Sleep on, fellow patriots, only liberals need fear this.”
Blow it out your lying butt!
Show me where the Founding Fathers rejected the right of a legal owner to invite ANYONE on to their property, government or not.
A warrant is used when permission has been denied or is not available. When permission is given, no warrant is required.
Again - if you are a passenger in a car, and the driver gives the cops permission to search the car, you cannot complain if the cops find you hiding drugs. Your home is no different, in the sense that someone with a legal right to invite another onto your property also has the legal right to allow cops on the property.
Align yourself with Kagan and Ginsberg if you want. I’d find them repulsive company. If my sin is agreeing with Thomas and Scalia, I’ll take my chances.
“The problem wasn’t ultimately writs of assistance.”
Ummm...yes it was. An unending warrant covering an entire colony WAS the problem.