NOTES ON THE CONSTITUTION

Fiedor Report On the News #305 ^ | 3-0-03 | Doug Fiedor

[forest]

For some reason, many in the Washington bureaucracy seem to think that spying on American citizens is a right of government. Obviously, it has not occurred to anyone in the White House, the spook agencies, the Department of Justice, and now even the Department of Defense, that they have no authority to be snooping on us. Absolutely none. The bureaucratically inconvenient words in the Fourth Amendment that supposedly limit their spying on citizens are:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The operative words "shall not be violated" seem rather understandable to most people, just not to politicians and bureaucrats. Note, also, that the authors of the amendment did not leave any wiggle room in the clause. The amendment was edited by the greatest legal minds of the day, in both houses of Congress, and says exactly what they meant -- in very clear English.

Also, the intent of the Founding Fathers was that every word of our Constitution is to apply equally to every official in government -- especially to the policing agencies and tax collectors.

So, who in government can be depended upon to defend our Fourth Amendment, and our right to privacy? Apparently, no one in Washington. Listen closely. Do you hear any words of support for your individual rights, liberties and privacy coming from your elected officials? Of course not. Just the opposite, in fact.

What the Washington bureaucracy seems to be telling the American people, in effect, is that the Rule of Law is dead and the Constitution is no longer really the law of the land.

 

 END

[forest]

Fed Gov has absolutely no authority to spy on us. The 4th Amendment is very clear: "shall not be violated".

The intent of the Founding Fathers was that every word of our Constitution is to apply equally to every official in government -- especially to the policing agencies and tax collectors.

Apparently they cannot read.

[Cacophonous]

Yeah, I can only hope the GOP gets in power soon...President Bush would never sign something like this...

[Grand Old Partisan]

The magic word is "unreasonable" -- one cannot pretend to be an expert on the Constitution without dealing with the fact that the Constitution does not ban searches and seizures, just require that they be reasonable.

[Founding Father]

Hells Bells, Doug, don't you know this is post 9/11 and those nasty old terrorists are going to destroy this country if we don't ignore that obsolete piece of paper you call the constitution. How are we supposed to defend ourselves if we don't let the gubermint snoop on us? Besides that, it's the republicans that want to tear up the constitution--WHICH MEANS IT'S OK----so there!

[AdamSelene235]

"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is the least to be cheap and is never free of cost." -RAH

[jammer]

No, it doesn't JUST require that they be reasonable. It spells out reasonable in the next sentence.

[jammer]

Oops, not next "sentence", but next "clause".

[Grand Old Partisan]

The next clause deals with warrants, so perhaps you meant some other clause.

If you did, it is not at all true that searches must be authorized by warrants to be reasonable, are warrants are de facto proof of reasonableness but are not required for some searches to be reasonable. For example, police arrest an armed man trying to escape after he robbed a store. Must they first get a warrant before searching him? Reasonable people say no.

[jammer]

Reasonable people don't equate catching someone during the commission of a crime with the constant monitoring of a citizenry whose "probable cause" to commit a crime is non-existent and, in fact, has not even been alleged.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Yes, but that's the whole point. What is reasonable is to be determined by law, subject to judical review.

[jammer]

Well, I think that's the author's point--there has to be some concrete standard not subject to whims of "judicial review", etc. And that we have long passed any, to use your word, "reasonable" standard.

Twenty years ago--or even 10--I would have agreed with the thrust of your argument, but we have had object lessons, beginning (for me) with the incineration of children for their sake, which cause me to realize that the most honorable people--including you and me--who gain power are not to be trusted with determining for themselves how far the rules can be stretched.