MN Legislature Introduces Amendment To Protect Electronic Communications

Bob the Super Hamste writes: The Minnesota legislature has introduced an amendment to the State Constitution to enshrine the protections against unreasonable search and seizure to electronic communications and data. The amendment appears to have broad support in the State House, but leadership in the State Senate is lukewarm to it. In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Ron Latz (DFL) had blocked the amendment, stating that he feels it is redundant. Additionally, Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk (DFL) opposes the legislation because it is an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution. If it passed, Minnesota would become only the second state to enact such a change (Missouri did so last year with support from 75% of voters).

Comments

Redundancy Is Good For Civil Rights

[firewrought]

He feels it is redundant.

Supposedly the Bill of Rights was controversial in its day because many of the founding fathers thought it would be unnecessary: the population would zealously guard their hard-earned liberty and the various protections of the Constitution (representational government, separation of powers, etc.) would prevent tyranny. In fact, they feared that by enumerating freedoms they would inadvertently limit them, which is why they ultimately included the 9th amendment to say "hey, this isn't an exhaustive list" [though the practical effect of the 9th has been null].

Fortunately, the Bill of Rights was passed despite being "redundant", and the courts have brought it into play several times when lawmakers worked up particularly nasty bills. Unfortunately, the courts have also weasel-worded their way into listing several exceptions to these amendments (especially where 1, 2, and 4 are concerned).

Re:Redundancy Is Good For Civil Rights

[linuxrocks123]

The story is actually very interesting. The Bill of Rights was enacted as a compromise to get the Constitution passed. The Constitution was not our first government -- that was the Articles of Confederation, but the Articles of Confederation basically wasn't working at all because it was a very poor design.

Some highlights: it gave the federal government so little power it couldn't do anything. It couldn't even pass taxes; the states were supposed to voluntarily pitch in. It also required unanimous consent in Congress to pass any law, and Congress was all there was; there was no executive or judicial branch.

So some of the leaders -- the Federalists -- drafted the Constitution to replace it. But there were Anti-Federalists, and they argued the central government would become so powerful it would eventually turn tyrannical. So, the Bill of Rights was added to placate them. We can see now that was a really, really Good Idea(TM).

Re:Redundancy Is Good For Civil Rights

[fyngyrz]

We can see now that was a really, really Good Idea(TM).

We can also see that because it has no teeth -- there is no penalty for violating the constitution -- it wasn't able to do its job, and that is why, today, we have ex post facto laws, direct violations of most of the bill of rights, the inversion of the commerce clause, and judicial usurpation of article 5 powers. Not to mention a collapse of representation into corporate servitude, resulting in a de-facto oligarchy.

So, we... Hey! Was that a Nipple Slip????

All systems can be abused

[s.petry]

I see the US Constitution bashed constantly in media, and occasionally here. You seem to hint at the same idea in your last sentence as well, but maybe I'm taking that wrong. The US was the best design in the history of Governments. Many compromises took place to enact it, but the idea was that it would be difficult to change (not impossible). We now have Politicians and Supreme court justices that believe the Constitution is a nuisance, and that is telling. Primarily that the US Constitution is still a thorn in their sides.

If we taught kids the history of the Constitution and all that surrounded it, we would be much better off.

I can dream can't I?

Painting himself into a corner

[SeaFox]

In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Ron Latz (DFL) had blocked the amendment, stating that he feels it is redundant.

Saying it's redundant implies there are already laws on the books that protect against unreasonable search and seizure of electronic communications -- yet those actions are being taken.

So which is it, Ron? Either this is not redundant, and therefore a good idea in the scheme of checks and balances, or LEOs are getting unlawful access to electronic communications. Either way, there's a problem here that needs to be addressed.