The purpose of the 4th Amendment

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The reason why they wrote the 4th Amendment was to protect the citizens from politically motivated search and seizures.
The English Kings used search and seizures to harass and imprison their political opponents.

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.
Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, “Every man’s house is his castle,” and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendment’s two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an “unreasonable” search and seizure?

Fourth Amendment | Search & Seizure, Privacy Rights, Warrant Requirements | Britannica

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below. Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the

www.britannica.com

The whole purpose of the 4th Amendment was to protect the citizens from political hacks like Garland.
Garland's search and seizure of Trump's home was politically motivated harassment.
He did not have probable cause.
The NARA laws are not criminal statutes.
Trump has the executive power to classify and declassify documents.
Garland is making a fool of himself.

 

[konradv]

The reason why they wrote the 4th Amendment was to protect the citizens from politically motivated search and seizures.
The English Kings used search and seizures to harass and imprison their political opponents.

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.
Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, “Every man’s house is his castle,” and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendment’s two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an “unreasonable” search and seizure?

Fourth Amendment | Search & Seizure, Privacy Rights, Warrant Requirements | Britannica

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below. Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the

www.britannica.com

The whole purpose of the 4th Amendment was to protect the citizens from political hacks like Garland.
Garland's search and seizure of Trump's home was politically motivated harassment.
He did not have probable cause.
The NARA laws are not criminal statutes.
Trump has the executive power to classify and declassify documents.
Garland is making a fool of himself.

Theft of government property isn’t a political offense; it’s criminal.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Theft of government property isn’t a political offense; it’s criminal.

There is no proof that Trump stole government property.
But there is proof that Hillary Clinton stole White House furniture, and the DOJ never raided her house.
And there is proof that Garland's raid of Trump's home was politically motivated and therefore a 4th amendment violation.

 

[gipper]

The reason why they wrote the 4th Amendment was to protect the citizens from politically motivated search and seizures.
The English Kings used search and seizures to harass and imprison their political opponents.

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.
Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, “Every man’s house is his castle,” and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendment’s two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an “unreasonable” search and seizure?

Fourth Amendment | Search & Seizure, Privacy Rights, Warrant Requirements | Britannica

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below. Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the

www.britannica.com

The whole purpose of the 4th Amendment was to protect the citizens from political hacks like Garland.
Garland's search and seizure of Trump's home was politically motivated harassment.
He did not have probable cause.
The NARA laws are not criminal statutes.
Trump has the executive power to classify and declassify documents.
Garland is making a fool of himself.

You’re whistling past the graveyard. The 4A long ago disappeared. Snowden exposed the enormous spying effort by the USG of the American people years ago and nothing was done.

The entire Bill of Rights is on life support.

 

[konradv]

There is no proof that Trump stole government property.
But there is proof that Hillary Clinton stole White House furniture, and the DOJ never raided her house.
And there is proof that Garland's raid of Trump's home was politically motivated and therefore a 4th amendment violation.

Provide the proof. Judges seem to be saying there isn’t any.

 

[MisterBeale]

Theft of government property isn’t a political offense; it’s criminal.

The government has no property.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The reason why they wrote the 4th Amendment was to protect the citizens from politically motivated search and seizures.
The English Kings used search and seizures to harass and imprison their political opponents.

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.
Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, “Every man’s house is his castle,” and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendment’s two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an “unreasonable” search and seizure?

Fourth Amendment | Search & Seizure, Privacy Rights, Warrant Requirements | Britannica

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below. Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the

www.britannica.com

The whole purpose of the 4th Amendment was to protect the citizens from political hacks like Garland.
Garland's search and seizure of Trump's home was politically motivated harassment.
He did not have probable cause.
The NARA laws are not criminal statutes.
Trump has the executive power to classify and declassify documents.
Garland is making a fool of himself.

Maybe you should go door to door to every Law School in America and tell them about the 4th amendment.

I'm sure they'd be grateful for your wisdom!

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

The reason why they wrote the 4th Amendment was to protect the citizens from politically motivated search and seizures.
The English Kings used search and seizures to harass and imprison their political opponents.

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.
Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, “Every man’s house is his castle,” and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendment’s two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an “unreasonable” search and seizure?

Fourth Amendment | Search & Seizure, Privacy Rights, Warrant Requirements | Britannica

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below. Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the

www.britannica.com

The whole purpose of the 4th Amendment was to protect the citizens from political hacks like Garland.
Garland's search and seizure of Trump's home was politically motivated harassment.
He did not have probable cause.
The NARA laws are not criminal statutes.
Trump has the executive power to classify and declassify documents.
Garland is making a fool of himself.

Yes. He does have that ability. However, he followed NONE of the procedures to do so. And no, just thinking about it doesn't make it happen. There is a rigorous review process that is gone through before that "declassifying" happens.
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why Trump took these documents in the first place? And why he's trying so hard to hide the fact that he took them?

So far, every judge disagrees with you. The SC today refused to hear his little temper tantrum, last minute stall.
Trump is in deep shit. On the surface, he looks guilty of obstruction of justice.

Something that you and I would be sitting in prison for if it were us.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Yes. He does have that ability. However, he followed NONE of the procedures to do so. And no, just thinking about it doesn't make it happen. There is a rigorous review process that is gone through before that "declassifying" happens.
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why Trump took these documents in the first place? And why he's trying so hard to hide the fact that he took them?

So far, every judge disagrees with you. The SC today refused to hear his little temper tantrum, last minute stall.
Trump is in deep shit. On the surface, he looks guilty of obstruction of justice.

Something that you and I would be sitting in prison for if it were us.

Garland is abusing his power to politically harass Trump.
His raid was a 4th Amendment violation.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Garland is abusing his power to politically harass Trump.
His raid was a 4th Amendment violation.

Again, every judge so far seems to disagree with that assessment.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Again, every judge so far seems to disagree with that assessment.

Garland is going to lose this

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Garland is going to lose this

Wanna bet?

 

[konradv]

The government has no property.

What do you call the national parks? Since in a democracy the people are the government, yes it has property. Try taking something from the Smithsonian and see what happens.

 

[MisterBeale]

What do you call the national parks? Since in a democracy the people are the government, yes it has property. Try taking something from the Smithsonian and see what happens.

Governments, are just sophisticated constructs, of marauding bands of thieves. Like when you see hordes of Mongols raiding villages on the eastern steppes in villages in movies?

Modern governments, really, aren't a whole lot different. Folks supposedly give them their, "consent," but really, there isn't a lot of difference in the matter.

The concept, is, essentially the same when you look at it through the lens of the anthropologist. You are too indoctrinated by government schooling and mass media, to see clearly, and too attached to your culture to really understand what is going on.

The national government either stole land that originally belonged to someone else, or used money it extorted from taxpayers or by some other income raising means, under the guise of being a "legally endowed entity," because governments supposedly have a legal monoply on the use of force, but? There it is, they just take what they want, it is still a theft, legal or not. They took what they wanted. So national parks are the result, in the end, of theft, or commerce with the use of stolen funds.

Then? Do I really need to explain all how all the possessions in national museums got there? Someone, a private entity owned them first. They were either stolen or bought, with stolen funds.

 

[konradv]

Governments, are just sophisticated constructs, of marauding bands of thieves. Like when you see hordes of Mongols raiding villages on the eastern steppes in villages in movies?

Modern governments, really, aren't a whole lot different. Folks supposedly give them their, "consent," but really, there isn't a lot of difference in the matter.

The concept, is, essentially the same when you look at it through the lens of the anthropologist. You are too indoctrinated by government schooling and mass media, to see clearly, and too attached to your culture to really understand what is going on.

The national government either stole land that originally belonged to someone else, or used money it extorted from taxpayers or by some other income raising means, under the guise of being a "legally endowed entity," because governments supposedly have a legal monoply on the use of force, but? There it is, they just take what they want, it is still a theft, legal or not. They took what they wanted. So national parks are the result, in the end, of theft, or commerce with the use of stolen funds.

Then? Do I really need to explain all how all the possessions in national museums got there? Someone, a private entity owned them first. They were either stolen or bought, with stolen funds.

Not much different from Marxist ideology! If the masses are poor, it’s because the autocrats have been stealing their labor and living high on the hog.

 

[MisterBeale]

Not much different from Marxist ideology! If the masses are poor, it’s because the autocrats have been stealing their labor and living high on the hog.

You're not too far off actually.

For the same reason that far right, anarchist and libertarian ideologies won't work, is the same reason socialist and communist ideologies won't work. And those who believe in them, are just ignorant of the organic, and the biological nature of humanity.

If they took some ecology classes, and some physical anthropology classes, they would understand, that none of those types of government systems are stable over the long haul, and thus, the oligarchs and social engineers that design those types of systems, (read; dystopias,) are all madmen in the end. They are all doomed to failure. If not in the short term, they will never last more than a century, maybe two at most.

Whether it is from the left;

Escape from Freedom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or the right;

Jordan Peterson on embracing your inner lobster in 12 Rules for Life

In ‘highbrow self-help book’ 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, controversial Toronto prof explores the ways humans give life meaning.

www.thestar.com

The fact is, humans are not hard-wired, psychologically, for liberty. Just as our closest animal cousins, Gorillas, Bonobos, Chimpanzees aren't. They all live in troops with alpha leaders that direct their activities.

Society must be constructed in such a way, to guarantee that the liberties are engineered for individuals, and individuals must be educated and trained, or, given something to do with that liberty.