The Constitution in Plain English - Part 4 of 10
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 people or things to be seized.
Bill Clinton had a point when he said, "It all depends on what the meaning of the word is is." Shade the meaning of one word, and you've changed everything. In this case, the word is unreasonable.
I would hazard a very strong guess that when the Fourth Amendment was written, it would be considered unreasonable to search the person, papers and effects of every soul entering a public building or means of transportation, and seize anything that might by any stretch of the imagination be used as a weapon, such as a nail file. But nowadays, when I pointedly suggest that it is unreasonable to conduct such a search of white-haired non-terrorists, even the white-haired non-terrorists say, "But it makes me feel safer."
As for houses, anyone who understands plain English can figure out that this amendment makes it illegal and improper to conduct a search of someone's home without their knowledge, but this illegal and improper act has been sanctioned by the USAPATRIOT Act. The poor fools who voted for it no doubt rationalized their treason by saying "sneak-peek searches can only be performed with a search warrant, and there's nothing in the Fourth Amendment that says the home owner has to be notified about the warrant." But they also had to make a leap of faith that the owner's right to be secure in his house remains intact when Big Brother takes a look into that home without the owner's knowledge.
I don't try to board airplanes or enter arenas where being mugged by government searchers is a requirement for entry. I value the ability to move about freely, and I know that freedom would be severely limited if I demanded that the searchers first produce a warrant specifying probable cause and a list of the targets of the search. But the plain language of the Fourth Amendment says they need such a warrant before they can pat me down, ask me to take off my shoes, or conduct a strip search. A better man than I might fight for the right to enter a plane secure in my person, papers, and effects, but it's easier - and safer - simply to avoid the plane altogether.
And if enough people stop flying to the point where airlines begin to go bankrupt and ground their planes, well, that's the price of freedom. But that won't happen, because a majority of Americans apparently believes it's OK to feel up little old ladies because they might be hiding land mines in their sagging bras.
We have entered an era that is just plain frightening and, well, unreasonable. How hard is it to understand that the Fourth Amendment forbids government agents from violating the sanctity of a person's body, house, papers or effects?
Bill Clinton had a point when he said, "It all depends on what the meaning of the word is is." Shade the meaning of one word, and you've changed everything. In this case, the word is unreasonable.
I would hazard a very strong guess that when the Fourth Amendment was written, it would be considered unreasonable to search the person, papers and effects of every soul entering a public building or means of transportation, and seize anything that might by any stretch of the imagination be used as a weapon, such as a nail file. But nowadays, when I pointedly suggest that it is unreasonable to conduct such a search of white-haired non-terrorists, even the white-haired non-terrorists say, "But it makes me feel safer."
As for houses, anyone who understands plain English can figure out that this amendment makes it illegal and improper to conduct a search of someone's home without their knowledge, but this illegal and improper act has been sanctioned by the USAPATRIOT Act. The poor fools who voted for it no doubt rationalized their treason by saying "sneak-peek searches can only be performed with a search warrant, and there's nothing in the Fourth Amendment that says the home owner has to be notified about the warrant." But they also had to make a leap of faith that the owner's right to be secure in his house remains intact when Big Brother takes a look into that home without the owner's knowledge.
I don't try to board airplanes or enter arenas where being mugged by government searchers is a requirement for entry. I value the ability to move about freely, and I know that freedom would be severely limited if I demanded that the searchers first produce a warrant specifying probable cause and a list of the targets of the search. But the plain language of the Fourth Amendment says they need such a warrant before they can pat me down, ask me to take off my shoes, or conduct a strip search. A better man than I might fight for the right to enter a plane secure in my person, papers, and effects, but it's easier - and safer - simply to avoid the plane altogether.
And if enough people stop flying to the point where airlines begin to go bankrupt and ground their planes, well, that's the price of freedom. But that won't happen, because a majority of Americans apparently believes it's OK to feel up little old ladies because they might be hiding land mines in their sagging bras.
We have entered an era that is just plain frightening and, well, unreasonable. How hard is it to understand that the Fourth Amendment forbids government agents from violating the sanctity of a person's body, house, papers or effects?
posted by B.W. Richardson at
11:18 PM
1 Comments:
You must remember, our Founding Fathers were well founded historically in the concept of liberty. A lot of what influenced them came from English Common Law. William Pitt (1759-1806) explained the concept behind this amendment best, I think, when he wrote, "The poorest man may in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."
Just try to keep 'King George' out today. Vin Suprynowicz or James Bovard needs subject matter for yet another book.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home