Back to Gaffer's Philosophy
Archives.
The Gaffer's Philosophy;
Part 8: Amendments III and IV:
April 22, 2002:
In this essay, I want to look at the third and fourth amendments
to our constitution. Here is the third.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
This amendment has not, to my knowledge, caused any controversy or argument. I know of no time in our history where it has been violated. This amendment was more than likely a reaction to the behavior of the British military when America was under British rule.
The fourth amendment, by contrast, has been repeatedly violated by our government agencies. In theory, the fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizures. Here is the exact statement.
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.
According to how I understand this, the police may not enter my home without a duly sworn warrant describing the location and the purpose of the search. Further, they may not take any of my stuff unless it is described in the warrant. Neither can they stop me at large and search me or take my stuff. The whole thing is, the police cannot legally take me down without a reason; probable cause. Sadly enough, this does not keep them from doing it with no reason at all.
Although, Madison could not have predicted the automobile, it is clearly covered under this amendment. It is covered in two ways. In the simplest way, the automobile is a legitimate part of our person and effects. In that sense it is directly covered. If they cannot stop me and search me, they cannot stop me in my automobile and search it. In addition, the automobile can be viewed as an extension of our home. It is private, not public.
Either way, it is covered and the Attorney General of the State of Michigan has so stated on at least one occasion. When the Michigan State Police wanted to begin check point auto searches, they had sense enough to ask for an opinion first. The opinion was very straightforward. That, said the attorney general, would be a violation of the fourth amendment and he was ready to challenge the police. The police changed their minds and the challenge became unnecessary.
In many southern states, including North Carolina, the attorneys general are not so supportive of the people. In Michigan, the attorney general has traditionally viewed the office as the guardian of the peoples rights and safety. This is not the case everywhere. Many southern attorneys general see their office as a supporting arm of the state government. They often act to support the government against the people.
Such is the case in North Carolina. I have a relative there who brags to me about how the police regularly operate auto checkpoints which they move about the state at random. I believe the rational he gave was about some kind of safety issue. He was very happy with this state of affairs. Of course, he is a clearly identifiable white Caucasian, He slides quickly through the checkpoints. Peoples of other persuasions are not so lucky. Their vehicles are often searched. I believe the real reason for the checkpoints is quite sinister and has to do with race. My relative implied as much. It is, as they say, a well known secret.
Another violation of this amendment was reported on the ABC evening news by Peter Jennings on Feb 28, 2002. This came as a result of the September 11 attack on America. According to that report, there are still over 300 people in custody who were arrested and are being held by the justice department without being charged.
In an interview, one woman described her ordeal. There is no reason to believe she spoke anything but the truth. At night, she did not say what time, federal agents knocked on the door and entered her home. Without informing them of any rights, these agents rigorously questioned her and her husband for several hours. In that questioning, they were accused of being terrorists. They were not told they were suspects. They were told they were terrorists.
The agents then told them to get ready because they were going to jail. Then they were taken out of their home. The woman was later released. Not so her husband. He is still being held. This is a classic case of illegal search and seizure. To be sure, this is more that just a violation of the fourth amendment. It is also a blatant violation of the sixth amendment.
I will get to the sixth amendment in its time. For now, what we know is, the feds would not tell her where her husband was being held. She got an attorney who was able to find where he is being held, but that did no good. She still cannot see him and she still cannot find out why they are holding him. They refused to tell her.
This is not just one person being held. There are over 300 such prisoners. They have been refused communication with the media. They have been refused their rights. They have not been charged with any crime. They are just being held in undisclosed locations. Their families have not been informed of where they are. They were taken out of their homes, some of them at night, just as the Jews in Germany were taken. Their homes were invaded without warrant and without cause and they were arrested. Why? Because they are Arabs. There is no other reason.
Now what about the pretext? As was reported, these people have not been charged with any crime. However, there is some reason to believe that some of them are illegal aliens. It seems that some of them entered the country without permission or neglected to renew their visas. This is a practice that the immigration service has winked at for many years. They simply have not bothered to enforce the immigration laws. This lapse of law enforcement created the situation the justice department needed and they took it.
I would like to argue, that violation of the immigration laws is not a sufficient reason to abridge the Constitution of the United States. These people must still receive due process. Holding them incommunicado without charge is clearly a criminal act by the government. It is a deliberate violation of the constitution. In truth, I am very frightened about the direction our current government is taking. Rather than rare occurrences, criminal acts by our government seem to have become a standard of operation. I must ask myself, what will happen when they run out of Arabs? Who will be next?
Next time, I will continue with amendments to the constitution.
Back to Gaffer's Philosophy
Archives.
|
|
|
|