Again, the Constitution is nice in theory vis-a-vis our rights. But don't you think that if it said something like, oh, I dunno, "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", then (for instance) photo-red traffic cameras would be illegal since there is no accuser?
Oh yeah, I forgot. The Constitution doesn't apply if you 'charge property with a crime', and you must pay tribute or else they keep it. We used to call that extortion. But that's ok, since the Constitution is a living document and doesn't really mean what it says.
Thanks, Supremes.
Well, if the photo-red traffic cameras are in your house....I might agree with you.
As for 'charge property with a crime' I have no clue what you are talking about...
unless it is the forfeiture laws for property used by a person in the commission of a crime.
Been raising a little weed out back, have you?