Obama votes against 4th Amendment

[Radar]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Your link seems to require a subscription to The Wall Street Journal to be read in its entirity. From what I can gather from Googling the subject, the right to privacy is a pretty controversial topic. Here's a quote from a site that seems to have quite a bit of information on the subject.






http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...ofprivacy.html

I am sure we're on the same page Sam, but I should point out for those who disagree that our rights don't come from the Constitution. There is no such thing as a "Constitutional right". We are born with our rights and the Constitution was written to protect them; not to define them or limit them. One does not need to define or limit our rights in order to protect them. Our right to privacy is a birthright. The federal government has zero authority to violate our rights and we have a right to not be searched unless there is adequate evidence to suggest we have committed a crime, and then only when a judge agrees and grants a warrant to search one particular thing...a house...a car...telephone conversations...email...etc.

Each requires a different warrant, and each requires a substantial amount of probable cause to gain such a warrant. All alcohol checkpoints, or other random searches such as flying over neighborhoods with thermal sensors to find those who may be growing marijuana are gross violations of the limitations on governmental power, and our civil rights.

[Troubleshooter]

It seems to me that the contemporary view of the right to privacy is an extension of the 4th amendment.

"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."

That could go a long way towards planting the idea that people have a certain degree of autonomy and privacy.

Phone conversations, email, IMs and so on are nothing more than our electronic "papers".

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Radar

I am sure we're on the same page Sam, but I should point out for those who disagree that our rights don't come from the Constitution. There is no such thing as a "Constitutional right". We are born with our rights and the Constitution was written to protect them; not to define them or limit them. One does not need to define or limit our rights in order to protect them. Our right to privacy is a birthright. The federal government has zero authority to violate our rights and we have a right to not be searched unless there is adequate evidence to suggest we have committed a crime, and then only when a judge agrees and grants a warrant to search one particular thing...a house...a car...telephone conversations...email...etc.

This was true once upon a time before our federal government grew into a many headed hydra that grows two heads for each one that is cut off. I still have some small faith in government at the local level. I have found that a citizen can be heard at a town meeting level, and I've even had some success with state representatives, but anything higher, forget it. Now a days our every right must be engraved in steel somewhere, and, even then I suspect that we the people would continue to be tromped on.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Engraved in steel? With the price of scrap these days, it wouldn't last a week.