N
NewGuy
Guest
Originally posted by Reilly
Okay, let me try this a different way. I will give you the precise question you called for.
Is it an unreasonable search, forbid by the Constitution, to search all the black men in a bar full of black men, because you received an anonymous tip that a black man in the bar was carrying an unregister firearm?
My initial thought is this is an unreasonable intrusion on the rights of everyone that was searched.
It is. The ammendment stands on its own. Read it and notice there are only commas and how that affects the sentence:
Amendment IV
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.
Which simply means that a "reasonable" search does not violate the Constitution, and must have a warrant by the criteria listed herein. If there were any open ended criteria, the sentence would not have been run-on with commas, but have seperate ideas seperated by periods. This is why we have been dumbed down by TV and public education, so we could not read stuff like this which was common language of the age.
Big Whoop. It MUST follow the criteria listed to get a search. If you had PROACTIVE instead of REACTIVE police as the Constitution dictates, you would have a police state, not liberty.What if the anonymous tip was that the man was carrying a bomb and intended to destroy the entire building?
Again, same scenario. If we didn't have the right to bear arms as infringed upon as it is today, that guy would most likely be found with a small hole in his head just before detonation and nobody would know who did it.What if the tip was that the man was in his apartment and about to set off a nuclear device?
It may be reasonable when you consider today's common views where people trade liberty for security, but those who do deserve neither, as was beautifully said by one of the framers of our Constitution. Drawing the line, as pointed out above, has already been done.Well, under these circumstances, it seems more reasonable in to execute the search, but who is to make the final decision? Where do you draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable?
Somebody has to make that call. Somebody has to interpret what the vague phrase "unreasonable search" entails. Under our system of government, it is the courts that make this determination - that interpret the vague words of the Supreme law of the country.
And there it is. As soon as you make that excuse, by taking the Constitution out of context, you make the Constitution a document that is incompetent and incapable of doing its job as intended. You give judges the right to BE the Constitution. It is in this way that anyone who sees your view as correct would have no right to complain about "activist judges".
1. Yes it is to be read literally. Do you see conditions there?For another example, the Constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech. Is that to be read literally? Is the government absolutely forbidden from arresting or preventing a person from inciting a violent mob riot. Most people would say no.
2. Yes they are forbidden from arresting a person for their speech. If a person goes into a theater, for a classic example, and yells "Fire!", just for kicks, and 10 people are stampeded, it should be perfectly legal and ok for him to do it.
-BUT you then charge him for 10 counts of assault.
The Constitution nails it down perfectly, you don't have a police state, nor do you have a parenting government, you have absolute liberty with full individual responsibility. If "most people" disagree, it is because they were not alive when the Constitution was written (obviously), and only have history to go on. To whose advantage is it to have an informed public? Not your activist judges, nor politicians, nor military. Hmmm. Who has the power these days?
Only currently, it is not intended to, it is not legally entitled to, and it is not right.That kind of activity is not protected. But who is to decide what Freedom of Speech means? The courts, obviously.