Where have you been?
Michael Silence rounds up other bloggers who are lamenting the death of the fourth amendment. Listen up guys, it’s been deader than Robert Matthew Van Winkle’s career for a while now. Once the courts ruled that 1) it’s OK to have roadblocks as long as you stop every body; and 2) because of the advent of indoor plumbing, it’s OK for police to knock your door down; it was over. Listening in on my phone conversations pales in comparison to that, I would think.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
The War on Drugs ™ paved the way for the “War on Terra”, after all.
July 12th, 2008 at 4:30 am
Absolutely, Uncle. Bork was wrong as he could be, he wasn’t confirmed for other reasons, which is still fortunate for us, since he was and is a stupid prick who doesn’t realize the fourth is the very definition of “privacy”, but as it turns out the Feds didn’t need him. They killed the fourth anyway.
Oh, except at my house. Can’t keep them from doing it,but can punish them for it.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:51 am
The “unreasonable” element of the Fourth Amendment almost begs for such a watered-down interpretation. Imagine the outcome in Heller if the Second Amendment only provided that the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be unreasonably infringed.”
July 12th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I’m sorry, but if you’re chatting up terrorists, the only thing you have a right to is a rope around your neck — and I would happily put it there. See your Constitution, particularly Article III, Section 3.
Death of the Fourth Amendment, my ass.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Don’t forget that the only ones can pat you down for a weapon anytime for “officer safety”. We’re protected against unreasonable search and seizure, but when the government always has a reason, we never have any protection.
July 13th, 2008 at 10:46 am
“The government must be free to surveill whoever it wants, to preserve our freedom”
And remember, “Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia”
July 14th, 2008 at 8:04 am
rightwingprof,
Please define “terrorists”.
The thing is, according to the definition in criminal justice textbooks, I expect that you fit that definition.
That there is the problem. If everybody does not have that protection, within our borders, then no one has that protection.