Just to fill up a little space late at night, I have a question for all of you.
Did you ever, in your life, consider the possibility that the Fourth Amendment
to the Constitution might one day become controversial? In a million years, would
you ever have imagined that embracing the protections that amendment grants every
American, might one day be depicted as somehow nefarious or subversive?
On my own site, I like to post the text of the Fourth Amendment at the end of each night, just to keep the horror of the NSA scandal very present. I’ll
keep that particular repetition to myself,and off of Booman, but one night
can’t hurt, so here goes:
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.
Good stuff. I wonder if the founders were thinking about the authoritarian
and intrusive tenancies of all governments when they ratified that one?
One other thing. Just in case you ever wondered if baby pandas and Constitutional
amendments mix well, here’s your chance to find out.
Have a lovely evening, and don’t let the data miners bite.
[Update] Izzy points out in comments that the Fourth Amendment has indeed existed in a
state of controversy for years, as a result of the the "War on Drugs." among other things.
This is certainly true, and it has been spoken to in far greater detail than I’m
prepared to get into at 3:00 in the morning (shit, I have to wake up for work soon).
At some time in our history, we’re going to get to the point where we require
our government to abide by the documents that establish our government’s very
existence. This whole business is by consent. Don’t let anybody lie to you,
your elected officials, and those who serve them, are the ones who owe us loyalty.
That’s how the loyalty flows in this system of government. They owe it to us
to obey the law, to both the letter and the spirit. They owe it to us to work on our behalf in whatever branch of government they serve. They swear loyalty to a
people, a nation and to a clearly defined set of principals when they take office. We have every right (obligation)to hold their feet to the fire and demand their
loyalty to the founding principals of this nation and their loyalty to us.
In the drug war, the people who’s rights are shit on regularly, are often not
sympathetic characters. That makes a full out Fourth Amendment defense difficult,
though certainly not impossible. Indeed, it’s what should be happening regularly
where applicable.
What makes NSA scandal special is that it effects everyone. From what I can glean from
the limited information available, the government is tapping directly into the
massive data hubs that exist in New York and a few other cities, with the cooporation
of the companies that maintain those hubs.
Everything, from voice, to email, to encrypted communications is vulnerable.
All we have to go on is thier word (cough) that they’re being responsable about
what they look at. Well, fuck that. Like every other American, I a have a right
to be secure in my person, papers, house and effects against any such nonsense.
For those that had the eyes to see, the abuses of the drug war, were beyond the pale. I
feel like this one ought to be really easy to see, even for those who try to look
away. Only time will tell.
I hate to say this, but the 4th has been controversial for decades. It’s been toast since the drug war at least. But it’s really good to be reminded, and that panda is adorable!
That’s true. And one reason for the controversies is that the persons with the most pressing interest in seeing the fourth amendment enforced and the time and inclination to fight the cases all the way up to the supreme court are usually convicted criminals who want their sentences overturned. So the law is full of cases in which the defendants are not sympathetic characters.
Cute panda
Yeah, that’s the slippery slope alright. It’s okay when it’s just a bunch of junkies. Now it’s almost anyone.
So true. For some reason, I can never seem to remember the drug wars in any sort of a reasonable and coherent fashion. I’m going to correct the post a little to point out that this isn’t as new as I implied. I recall reading about a wonderful blow up between Bill Clinton and Hunter Thompson in ’92 on the very issue. Hunter walked away quite depressed. Thanks for the correction Izzy.
Oh, no need for a correction! Just one of my pet subjects. I’m happy that most Americans believe in the 4th amendment and think it’s been sacred all this time. I think that just may be our redemption (I hope).
Oh, and HST was the best. Bless him.
of the saying, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
The Fourth Amendment is probably the least understood section of the Bill of Rights by the general public. So when violations occur, whether its an illegal search/seizure, drug-sniffing dogs in the schools, illegal wiretapping, or even some of the aspects of the Patriot Act, people shrug them off, figuring that “Hey, if you’re not doing anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to worry about.” But “doing something wrong” is very relative. Take random drug testing for example — the spouse is subject to it as a public transit operator. While he’s a good boy and doesn’t do drugs (we’ve even really cut back on our alcohol consumption, mainly because we don’t need the empty calories), there’s always that chance that some legal medication he’s taking could produce a false positive, and the costs of fighting that result could be devastating financially and emotionally. Yes, the intentions are good…I ride public transit and don’t want impaired operators, but it’s not just drugs that can make an unsafe driver — the spouse is taking a sick day because he was ill and didn’t think he’d be able to safely operate his bus. What’s next, random testing to make sure drivers are getting enough sleep?
I’m encouraged by the poll numbers saying that Americans are mostly displeased with Bush’s warrantless surveillance programs — most of the time, if a program is couched in “public safety” or “national security” terms, people will accept it without question. But maybe folks are starting to wake up and realize we’re on that “slippery slope”, and if we don’t put on some sort of brakes here, we’re going to end up where we don’t want to be.
You all make great points. It seems to me, though, that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect society’s least sympathetic. The first amendment is the same. If we don’t support these rights across the board, we could find ourselves branded as among the least sympathetic.
As far as drug testing, yeah, legal medications can mess things up. I have a friend, a doctor for a major corporation, who saved a guy from getting fired after a positive drug test. Seems his wife had baked him a poppy seed cake for his birthday and the opiates showed up in his urine. Thank goodness, the doc did some follow up.
I won’t even let the spouse get poppyseed bagels for that very reason…
And you’re right that the Fourth protects the “least sympathetic” — that’s why I said that most average Americans shrug off what could be perceived as minor violations of it, especially in the name of “public safety.”
Wow. Thanks for the excellent update, Chris. You really hit the nail on the head.
For some reason, I can never seem to remember the drug wars in any sort of a reasonable and coherent fashion.
That may be because they were never coherent or reasonable.
The foremost target of the Drug War was always the Fourth Amendment. Catching dealers and seizing contraband was very secondary.
Getting a warrant has always been easy. The problem is the cops have to say what they are looking for. They would rather fish at random.
document. An historic document. And it has no relation whatsoever to actual events, unless you count Mr. Danger’s bodily function-related hygiene practices.
With this administration, I wouldn’t put it past them to try and tear apart the Third Amendment.
Pax
Number 3: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
<snark>But we are in a state of war for the forseeable future, as Fearless Leader constantly reminds us. Guess I better go dust the guest room.</snark>
Ever since the advent of Nixon I’ve assumed the fourth amendment has been in jeopardy. And all my studious research into the hostiry of how fascism overturns democracies confirms that the freedoms enshrined in the fourth amendment are among the first ones targeted for elimination.
Whilst I’m not old enough to remember the bad days of McCartyism (I was alive for some of it- just not aware) I am old enough to remember, with much anger and bitterness, the Nixon years. I remember believing in those days that both the first and fourth amendments were at risk.
I ended up with an FBI file, as a fourteen year old, after attending a meeting with the Berrigan brothers at the local Quaker meeting house where I was a member. The included entries noting attendance at meetings of anti-war and civil rights groups as well as demonstrations over the next four or five years.
The FISA statute that Bush & co have almost certainly violated was, in part, a reaction to the events of those years.
Observing what is happening in America these days, albeit from a distance, is dispiriting and seems very much like a bad dream.
I’m pessimistic about our ability to restore the fourth amendment. Not that long ago, the fifteenth amendment was openly flouted in 1/3 of the country.
Amendment XV – The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
and more.
While the bill of rights is a great addition to the constitution, writs of habeas corpus are in the original text, and adherence to this fundamental principal has been “open to debate” for some time now.
I wrote a bit about that recently.
Thanks for the diary.