Really? So what does the word unreasonable mean? Define it. The founders put that word into the Constitution for a reason.
Actually, I do get to decide what reasonable is, as others have done. If I am forced to do so at 3:00 AM as my door is broken in, I can assure you that your opinion and that of the USSC will be the furthest from my mind.
Uh huh, and you'll be dead or jailed as a result of your decision if it does not comport with the law.
The constitutions check on the judiciary rests with congress, who answers directly to we the people.
Correct, but the judiciary was also purposefully set up by the Framers, with a very specific Constitutional function. Part of the function is to interpret the Constitution, not to make new law or legislate, but to interpret what the Constitution means where it is ambiguous. The word "unreasonable" requires interpretation. Simply allowing every person to decide for themselves what the word means would lead to anarchy.
I wouldn't call citizens contacting their representatives with their concerns anarchy.
Of course not, but of course that isn't what you were suggesting either.
Overuse? How about abuse?
In some cases, and this should be dealt with.
Dictionary.com defines it thusly:
Unreasonable —adjective
1. - not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational: an unreasonable person.
2. - not in accordance with practical realities, as attitude or behavior; inappropriate: His Bohemianism was an unreasonable way of life for one so rich.
3. - excessive, immoderate, or exorbitant; unconscionable: an unreasonable price; unreasonable demands.
4. - not having the faculty of reason.
>>Actually, I do get to decide what reasonable is, as others have done. If I am forced to do so at 3:00 AM as my door is broken in, I can assure you that your opinion and that of the USSC will be the furthest from my mind.
>
>Uh huh, and you'll be dead or jailed as a result of your decision if it does not comport with the law.
Well, in some states he may be fully in-the-right to kill: Self Defense Immunity Granted Murder Charge Dismissed (FL) <— No "Duty To Retreat" in FL.
In fact, IF THEY HAVE THE WRONG HOUSE [which has come up on this thread] then the following justifies even lethal response on part of the homeowner:
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” —— Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.
This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.
The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
Thanks, archy, for that info.
So the word was included to provide latitude for future courts in their interpretation?
How does this interpretation of reasonable square with self defense laws?
What consequences if any should there be when LE acts in error as they often do?
As OWS points out, LE has lost much respect as a result of the shift from safeguarding the rights of citizens to acting on behalf of the state, enforcing mala prohibita laws to generate revenue and treating the citizenry as an enemy.
That is precisely what I am suggesting.
So is it your view that “worthless dopers” should be executed without being found guilty?
Let me turn your own argument against you; how in the name of Chaos is a no-knock warrant GENERALLY APPLIED* reasonable?
*In addition to 'GENERALLY APPLIED' what of "EXCLUSIVELY APPLIED" as in all warrants being no-knock? Would THAT be reasonable?