[supercat]

The Constitution was written to be read and understood by ordinary citizens. The bulk of so-called "Constitutional law" is an effort by the Men in Robes to seize power by obfuscating what should be relatively clear.

If courts actually wanted to follow the Constitution, a good start would be acknowledging that many Constitutional issues involve factual matters and as such are matters for a jury to determine in each individual case. If a cop is serving a knock-and-announce warrant, procedures which may be reasonable (and thus legitimate) in one set of circumstances may be unreasonable (and thus illegitimate) in another. Courts have declared that if cops follow a procedure that was "reasonable" in one case, such a procedure is proper in any other case whether or not someone looking at the facts of that case would deem it to, in fact, be "reasonable". If a procedure is at least vaguely like some other procedure that was at least vaguely like something the court had found wasn't totally unreasonable, the court will deem it acceptable. If the matter were simply put to the jury: "Is that reasonable", the answer would be much more in keeping with the Constitution.

[EternalVigilance]

Agreed.

[Gilbo_3]

The Constitution was written to be read and understood by ordinary citizens. The bulk of so-called "Constitutional law" is an effort by the Men in Robes to seize power by obfuscating what should be relatively clear.

problem being, most ordinary citizens have been dumbed down to think that its an encyclopedia sized legalese document, and have therefore never bothered to spend an hour reading it...