Skip to main content

View Diary: Impeachment and the Original Intent of our Founders (108 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You are wrong, as the Amendment declares that the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jimdotz

    people shall be secure in their persons, papers and effects, anf THEN goes on the state to only basis for violating the right to such security.  Although the 4th Amendment is most often examined in a criminal context, that is because the warrant limitation is where the rubber meets the rode for most litigants.  The gurantee of security is primary.  The writers of the Constitution were brilliant men who knew how to write and knew thei psychology of human behavior, however empirically based.

    Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

    by StrayCat on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:02:38 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It most certainly does not say that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jimdotz

      It says that a right is secured only "against unreasonable searches and seizures."  It does not say that it is secure against substantive government regulation.  Nor has it ever been understood to say that.  

      •  Read the Amendment. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jimdotz

        Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

        by StrayCat on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:12:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I did. I suggest you do the same (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jimdotz

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

          Where does it say that it is a general right?!  It says that people have a right to be secure against unreasnable searches and seizures.  It does not read "the right of the people to be secure in [] shall not be violated."

          •  All searches and siezures, of persons places (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jimdotz

            papers and effects are protected against "unreasonable" searches and seizures.  The the Amendment making general warrants and writs of assistance unlawful, sets out the only way that the right can be suspended, and only in particular ways and at particular times.  Absent a judicually issued warrant, there is no right for the government to generally regulate these things.  The civil forfeiture statutes are a prime example of unconstitutional siezure of persons' effects.  In short, no search or seizure is lawful without particularly set out reanson based on probable cause some law has been violated.  This is not the same as health regulations, that limit use of property in some repects.

            Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

            by StrayCat on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:57:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is not at all what it says (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jimdotz

              Nowhere does it say anything about government regulation.  Never have warrants been understood as necessary to support legislation.  Warrants are only necessary to enforce legislation.

              In any event, the warrant clause is separate and apart from the first clause.

              Your fanciful notions are unsupported by anything other than your say-so.  The notion that civil forefeiture statutes are unconstitutional is directly contradicted by decades if not centuries of constitutional case law.

              •  Where did I say that the government could not (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jimdotz

                regulate.  Of course they can, but only outside of the rights protected by the Constitution.  There are many cases where the Supremes have held a prohibition unconstitutional because a prohibited means invading rights was used, and later upheld similar legislative regulatio9n by permitted means.

                Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

                by StrayCat on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 12:53:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Where does it say that it is a general right? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jimdotz

              Is your position that "the people" does not refer to a general body...like We, the People in the preamble to the Constitution?  If not a general term what are the defining elements of the specific group?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site