Replies

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 right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated;

But they're not your papers! Get it? Try going back to the store and asking that they turn them over to you. Aint gonna happen.

You know, you constitutional warriors are great at citing the consitution but you overlook the part of that document that provides that the supreme court applies that language to the facts of a particular case. You're like people that think because they have checks left in their checkbook they have money in their account; or your speedometer goes up to 120 mph and think your car should go that fast.

I was just about to post that again. IMHO, the ONLY place advocates of universal government surveillance have a leg to stand on, is that this MIGHT, repeat MIGHT, be considered a "reasonable" search, rather than an unreasonable search.

I, howwver, do not agree with that line of thought. I find it UNREASONABLE to profile every person who spends $10K cash, and to compile lists of said individuals in order to monitor their activities.

I fear the day when the Fedgov examines my file, determines that I have bought firearms, determines that I belong to the Republican party, determines that I post at FReerepublic, determines that I attend a Catholic church, and that I occasionally buy alchohol at the local supermarket, and that therefore, I am a threat as a domestic terrorist.

Others on this thread will not feel that fear until the govt starts profiling lawyers.