Originally Posted by
Swordsmyth
Originally Posted by Invisible Man
The fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for searches.
Here is what it actually says:
I guess you are Illiterate Man.
Let's see what it really says, to wit:
"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."
It opens by acknowledging (not granting) one's just claim to be secure in one's property†... imagine that, against "unreasonable" search and seizure. In this day we almost reflexively retort with "well, what does 'unreasonable' really mean?" Now if we recall the old quote by Jefferson that quipped to the effect that free men must perforce be devoid of ignorance, and of good moral fabric, it can be justifiably stated that "reasonable" in this case was abundantly clear to the Framers, as well as the typical dullard of the time. it was obvious, as it now is to anyone with a spark of intelligence. They were, after all, living in the Age of Reason. Asking so pedantic a question as to the meaning of "reasonable" serves not so much to indicate our diligence of habit (though it might), as our lack of smarts on a question concerning an issue so basic, that even the most sadly ill-educated among us should still know the answer, even if only able to sense it tacitly.
I maintain that "reasonable" holds a meaning that is intuitively clear, obvious, and correct and that those who ask such questions are likely attempting to throw others off the scent of the truth. This isn't rocket surgery. Small children, if asked about such things, will show a clear and sufficient understanding of the notion that evidently escapes the grasp of far too many adults.
It is clear to me what it means. It should be equally so to the vast and overwhelming majority of Americans, and dare I say the rest of the human world as well.
It means that, barring very convincing evidence to suggest that a man has committed a FELONY, which is the only class of true crimes the commission of which could be a reasonable justification for the issuance of a warrant intended to interfere in his acknowledged right that says he is not to be violated in his privacy, nor is he to be made victim of theft and other crimes by the "state". Once again we see that this is not a matter of rocket surgery. no college degree needed, but just some basic sense.
Therefore, the semantic meat of the 4A is to acknowledge the preexistent and inherent right of people not just to property, but to explicitly acknowledge and hold sacred their natural and inherent moral immunity to "state" predation and other unwelcome and, dare I say it... unwarranted (ARF ARF ARF) interferences with one's private property and affairs (which are also property). The "state" MAY NOT. They are restricted; banned; circumscribed; bounded; limited; forbidden; prohibited; proscribed; inhibited; disallowed; debarred; embargoed.
The 4A then goes on to say that the only way a man's acknowledged and guaranteed right to, and innate security of, his property may be provisionally countervailed is if a warrant to a very specific effect and purpose has been issued by a valid authority to that end. It further states, if in a shorthand manner, that such warrants issue but on sworn affirmation of the veracity of the evidence offered as justification for the violation of the rights in question here. I will note that where it 4A fails is to specify the draconian punishments to be meted to all agents of the "state" for all willful failures to present to an issuing authority the truth of the evidence they present, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, pure as the driven snows. Similar punishments should be meted to those who, through incompetence or negligence, have caused warrants to issue which are proven unjustifiable. But I digress, pardon me please.
And so, to claim that no warrant is required is in fact and indeed gravely mistaken. The requirement is made clear by implication and cannot be denied, save through ignorance or malevolent intention.
† Yes ladies and gentlemen, the 4A implicitly acknowledges the right to private property, a notion that any child in possession of an IQ in the positive integers will readily grasp and acknowledge.
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us