Bite your tongue. I am most certainly NOT a Libertarian -- quite the opposite.
I'm glad to see others here are also not of that nutcase persuasion.
However, civil liberties and defense of democracy are not the exclusive domain of Libertarians. In fact, I'd argue the opposite is true.
The notion that the U.S.'s intelligence community has too little oversight is shared by many people, of many different political persuasions. Moreover, my post specifically addressed this particular issue: if the NSA is, indeed, insisting on backdoors in domestic software, then their actions are over the line.
Many people are fighting hard to protect privacy. I think it's foolish and defeatist to give up on that goal. It would be even if things were ten times worse (i.e. if there were cameras in every house).
The NSA is made up of humans. Granted, humans with little oversight, but they're hardly infallible. As we all know, neither is Microsoft.
Real or not, I think this deserves a serious, deep investigation, since this "feature" is evidently found both in domestic and foreign copies of Windows NT.
Most people don't seem to realize just how little oversight is built in to the U.S. intelligence community. I'm willing to bet that few people (much less our elected representatives) outside the NSA knew they had Microsoft doing this.
Anti-democratic? Absolutely. It's what happens without checks and balances.
I'm finding that more and more, calls to rebuild our intelligence system from the ground up, with extensive oversight, sound not only reasonable but necessary as well.
BTW: one doesn't have to be paranoid, or a Libertarian (I'm a Liberal), to see the problems this sort of thing poses to civil liberties.
Does Australia have any form of Judicial Review? I mean, some sort of recourse if laws are passed that violate its constitution? I'm afraid I'm not really up on Australian governmental matters.
I'm sorry you feel that the enforcement of property rights was an example of the Supreme Court being "challenged in basic reading skills". Unfortunately for you, the US government was NOT in the business of proclaiming people free or slaves: that was a private sector responsibility until that Evil Statist Lincoln stole that sacred private right for the State. Until that time, only private, capitalist owners had the right to declare whether a black person was free or slave. Slavery was a sin of capitalism alone -- which presents a particular problem for Libertarians.
So do civil forfeiture, and most of the federal drug laws - unless there's interstate trade or they levy a tax, there's no Constitutional justification.
There are many Federal functions and powers that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. As I've already addressed in other posts, this is a non-issue. Once again, we're back to the notion that you don't like the rulings -- hardly grounds for accusing the Court as you have.
If, for example, Congress & Clinton were to pass into law the proposal about posting the Ten Commandments in schools and the SC ok's it, it would still remain a blatant violation of the First Ammendment.
Even in the above doomsday scenario, you are trying to assign a more certain, fundamental meaning to words and principles than they truly have. In our current system, the Supreme Court is the final word on whether such a law is Constitutional. This is not to say that we cannot disagree with the Court's rulings. And we can do something about it, by working to change the composition of the Court. But if you don't want to trust Congress to pass laws that respect Constitutional rights, you need someone to have final say. If not the Supreme Court, then the ball is firmly in your court to provide a reasonable alternative.
I never said that we should *ignore* the supreme court, i just said that they cannot legislate away individual inalienable rights, *by definition*. Im sure they picked that word carefully. No, congress cannot be trusted to pass laws that are constitutional, but neither can the sumpreme court be trusted to ubhold constitutional laws, nor strike down unconstitutional ones. Ethernal vigilance is the price of freedom.
But you can't pick and choose the decisions you want to treat as "legitimate" -- because your idea of "inalienable rights" might be different from mine, and views of rights changes over time, thanks to a more enlightened view. Our system, including Supreme Court decisions, is particularly good at this. We've abolished slavery, enfranchised women, minorities, and debtors, just to name a few changes to rights in the U.S. I do not believe that rights are "inalienable" -- rather, they are a reflection of the way we would like to live, and the kind of society we want to live in. They are based upon long, hard experience with other systems. I would submit to you that, without a final arbiter (the Court), there would be no instrument for protecting Constitutional rights.
This does not mean that we cannot work to change the composition of the Supreme Court, if we feel that they are making rulings contrary to what we would like. But that does not make their rulings "illegitimate".
One can never surrender their rights. They can be taken from someone, but not freely. And your pragmatic view belies your feeling that it's not worth fighting for... and that's what's sad about this country today. Don't you care?
I care absolutely passionately about rights in this country. There are multitudes of reasons, ranging from the fact that the U.S. fundamentally represents the sort of society in which the vast majority of us would like to live, given the alternatives, to the democratic means by which the laws, the Constitution and upheld rights are responsive to the will of the People.
It is precisely because rights are not inalienable (by which I mean, they can be taken away) that I care as much as I do.
1. Straw man argument: I seriously doubt that the person your replying too is arguing that the Supreme Court should be abolished, or that it shouldn't be a break on Congress. I very much doubt the *spirit* of his argument was making this point.
If you're attempting to demonstrate a straw-man argument, your own statement serves admirably.
The original poster stated:
I am less concerned with later judicial decisions regarding it; rather, what is important to understand is the intent of the framers when they wrote the amendment. Any future weakening of the constitution is invaild from the start, regardless of the Sumpreme Court decisions.
(emphasis added)
To which I replied:
If you want to ignore Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution, you need to explain how laws are to be screened for their adherence to individual rights. Should Congress simply be trusted to pass laws that do not violate constitutional rights, as the constitution implicitly allows? (BTW, judicial review is based upon several areas of legitimacy, including the fact that the Constitution itself allows the Supreme Court to settle all disputes to which the Federal Government is a party.)
Nowhere did I defend the Supreme Court against abolition. Rather, I addressed his argument that Supreme Court decisions were invalid when he didn't like the findings. My question to him (or to you) is: how are you going to judge a "legitimate" interpretation of the Constitution? If you don't want the Supreme Court to be the final word, what will serve?
By your admission the Framers were a contentious lot, but somehow they all agreed that the Tenth Admendment wasn't supposed to be a break on the Federal government, huh? Isn't that convenient? I suppose that the First admendment is also "largely symbolic" too
It's not a matter of convenience; rather, it's a matter of public record. Anti-Federalists wanted to insert the word "expressly", to limit the powers of the Government to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution. However, the majority voted it down, presumably recognizing the fact that Government (and the Constitution upon which it is based) must change and adapt with the times. Most constitutional historians regard the 10th Amendment as the unsuccessful attempt to limit Federal powers that it was. You might want to check out what FindLaw has to say on the subject.
So is the very idea of rights in the first place! Your point?
I assume you're saying that rights are "what we believe ought to be". If so, we agree. My point was, I take issue with the previous poster's implication that the Supreme Court has somehow gone against some notion of "absolute rights". If you indeed agree with me, you should take issue with this, too.
My example of totalitarian societies was simply a refutation of the notion of absolute rights. It had nothing to do with whether "we in the US should tolerate the infringement,if not the outright denial of our rights".
OK, Kaa, You've argued some good points well, and after having had a chance to look over the proposal in more detail (the Center for Democracy and Technology has an analysis at http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_5.1 9.html), I'll now concede that this proposal indeed goes too far.
However, I do maintain that, if a warrant is served, under the law and the Constitution, the police do have the right to the specific material they are seeking. I believe the courts are the proper (and smarter) place to fight police abuses, overall.
The Court has said many things over the years. A large number of its decisions have shown a lack of basic reasoning and reading comprehension skills.
This is, of course, your opinion. You might as well say, "I don't like their decisions" -- unless, of course, you can provide examples other than your own subjective interpretations?
The Court does not determine what is or is not Constitutional; it determines what the government is going to treat as Constitutional or not.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not the exclusive domains of Libertarians -- in fact, I'd argue that much or Libertarianism would result in a major loss of the above, carried to it's logical extreme.
Regardless, you're free to believe whatever you wish about the 10th Amendment, of course. However:
1) If you want to ignore Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution, you need to explain how laws are to be screened for their adherence to individual rights. Should Congress simply be trusted to pass laws that do not violate constitutional rights, as the constitution implicitly allows? (BTW, judicial review is based upon several areas of legitimacy, including the fact that the Constitution itself allows the Supreme Court to settle all disputes to which the Federal Government is a party.)
2) The "intent of the Framers when they wrote the Amendment" is a wildly subjective thing, given the fact that they were quite a contentious lot, and each had their own agendas (gee, sounds quite a bit like -- today!). However, my second reference completely shoots down this objection, already: the Framers specifically voted down proposals to make the 10th Amendment a brake upon Federal powers.
3) The notion that one cannot surrender rights is a mixing of the notions of what is and what ought to be. One most certainly can surrender rights -- people living in totalitarian countries do it all the time.
4) I have absolutely no idea where you got your last paragraph.
Let's say I have collected a large body of information on home-growing of pot and stored it on my hard drive. Suspecting that other people might not think that my motives are pure, I encrypt all this stuff, and, maybe use steganography, as well. Now if the cops come with a warrant, they have to deal with the encryption. They need a court order for me to surrender the key, I can claim Fifth Amendment, etc., etc. It becomes a prolonged legal battle, expensive for the cops to wage.
You're implying that protections against police abuse rely upon the irretrievable hiding of information from the police. The illogic of this scenario is that a warranted search that turned up papers with the above information would in no way violate your rights. Again, the 4th Amendment relies upon the court system, not individuals, to control police abuses. Efficiency of the actual search is not an issue.
Furthermore, you can argue 5th Amendment protections, regardless.
As I've said before, the potential for abuse of power (i.e. ignoring the need for a warrant) is another issue, entirely. Such abuse is possible in any system, including the "old-fashioned one" in which the police had to enter suspect's homes manually. To wit:
1) If someone in law enforcement wanted to ignore the warrant system, he/she would have multiple illegal options open to him or her, regardless,
2) In a small-scale, corrupt system where the police have free reign, the limiting of police to "traditional" efficiency won't help you much,
3) In the large scale, such actions are prohibited by Constitutional protections, and would result in a major waste of time by (and probable legal action against) the police involved.
Sorry, that should be: "The 4th Amendment's protection against illegal search and seizure does not rely upon the 'difficulty of conducting a search' or the efficiency of police operations."
the physical enter-and-search is quite manpower-intensive. Your local cops physically cannot do 1000 searches every day. Electronically they can, and they will be tempted very much to do so.This is not a problem with the granting of warrants... , but rather a problem with the fact that one of the existing limitations on search-and-seizures starts to disappear...
The 4th Amendment's protection against illegal search and seizure does rely upon the "difficulty of conducting a search" or the efficiency of police operations. Rather, the entire rationale of the Amendment is the use of a warrant system for such protection.
That's not to say that ease of police operations does not affect the potential for end-running around the warrant system (i.e. ignoring the law -- of course, it would little avail the police to build a case based upon such illegally-obtained information). However, we're not talking about placing cameras in every home, to be turned on for survelliance purposes with a warrant. We're talking about the police, with a warrant, entering a home.
Ah, I was wondering when the true Libertarian arguments were going to pop up.
This is a clear violation of our fourth amendment right to a warrant that "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
This has nothing to do with weather the warrant is sealed. Rather, it has to do with whether the warrant is too general. As I already remarked, fishing expeditions are explicitly disallowed. If this rule is ignored, it really doesn't matter whether the warrant is sealed or not; or for that matter, whether one is served at all.
as well as the ninth and tenth amendments, which restricts the feds to only the enumerated powers in the constitution.
Supreme Court case law, as well as history, strongly disagrees with you. Regarding the Tenth, the Supreme Court has ruled: ''The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered." (1) The vast majority of expansions of federal government have been contested before the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Sometimes the Supreme Court has struck down these expansions as unconstitutional; sometimes it has upheld them as constitutional. IOW, today's Federal powers have passed the consitutional requirement of judicial interpretation of the constitution.
The Tenth Amendment is a largely symbolic amendment. A look at its history reveals that the Founding Fathers did not intend it to be a severe brake on federal powers. This is proven by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word ''expressly'' before the word ''delegated.'' (2)
The wording of the Amendment, according to numerous decisions, leaves implied Federal powers intact.
References:
1. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941).
ie did your x-lover plant somethingi and then make an call? or are the Fed's after them teen pr0n
And the difference here would be...? If someone (including the police) wanted to plant something, they wouldn't need a sealed warrant to do it.
w/ a secret warrant you dont know! so how can you build a defence for something you can't see comming?
If you're going to mount a defense, the last place and time to do it are when the police are conducting a search. That's true whether you know at the time that the search is being conducted. Building a defense, rather, is done in the courts.
It sounds like you want to have a chance to hide stuff that looks bad. I can understand that. But with a non-sealed warrant, you can't see it coming, either. The only difference is that you can see them rummaging around your house.
You're not addressing this particular action; rather, you seem to have a problem with how search warrants are granted in general.
If the police can get warrants for fishing expeditions (which are specifically forbidden by the Bill of Rights, BTW), it doesn't matter whether they fish now or later, with or without your immediate knowledge.
The only grounds I could see for problems with this are whether it would be used for entrapment; that's a concern with many police operations, and at least this one requires a warrant to initiate. Entrapment already has quite a bit of case law regulating what the police can and can't do.
I can find lots of other issues that are quite a bit more alarming than a new form of warranted search.
Look, guys, I'm as much a privacy advocate as the next guy, but the Bill of Rights CLEARLY states that a warrant is grounds to enter and search. As long as they have to have a warrant, it's kosher with me.
Whether it's too easy these days to GET warrants is another issue, entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad to see others here are also not of that nutcase persuasion.
However, civil liberties and defense of democracy are not the exclusive domain of Libertarians. In fact, I'd argue the opposite is true.
The notion that the U.S.'s intelligence community has too little oversight is shared by many people, of many different political persuasions. Moreover, my post specifically addressed this particular issue: if the NSA is, indeed, insisting on backdoors in domestic software, then their actions are over the line.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
We really need more info.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Many people are fighting hard to protect privacy. I think it's foolish and defeatist to give up on that goal. It would be even if things were ten times worse (i.e. if there were cameras in every house).
It is very important that this fight be fought.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Real or not, I think this deserves a serious, deep investigation, since this "feature" is evidently found both in domestic and foreign copies of Windows NT.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Anyone else with debugging info to check this?
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I'd appreciate it, if this is their idea of "working for us", that they'd work a little bit less for us.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Anti-democratic? Absolutely. It's what happens without checks and balances.
I'm finding that more and more, calls to rebuild our intelligence system from the ground up, with extensive oversight, sound not only reasonable but necessary as well.
BTW: one doesn't have to be paranoid, or a Libertarian (I'm a Liberal), to see the problems this sort of thing poses to civil liberties.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Does Australia have any form of Judicial Review? I mean, some sort of recourse if laws are passed that violate its constitution? I'm afraid I'm not really up on Australian governmental matters.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I'm sorry you feel that the enforcement of property rights was an example of the Supreme Court being "challenged in basic reading skills". Unfortunately for you, the US government was NOT in the business of proclaiming people free or slaves: that was a private sector responsibility until that Evil Statist Lincoln stole that sacred private right for the State. Until that time, only private, capitalist owners had the right to declare whether a black person was free or slave. Slavery was a sin of capitalism alone -- which presents a particular problem for Libertarians.
So do civil forfeiture, and most of the federal drug laws - unless there's interstate trade or they levy a tax, there's no Constitutional justification.
There are many Federal functions and powers that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. As I've already addressed in other posts, this is a non-issue. Once again, we're back to the notion that you don't like the rulings -- hardly grounds for accusing the Court as you have.
If, for example, Congress & Clinton were to pass into law the proposal about posting the Ten Commandments in schools and the SC ok's it, it would still remain a blatant violation of the First Ammendment.
Even in the above doomsday scenario, you are trying to assign a more certain, fundamental meaning to words and principles than they truly have. In our current system, the Supreme Court is the final word on whether such a law is Constitutional. This is not to say that we cannot disagree with the Court's rulings. And we can do something about it, by working to change the composition of the Court. But if you don't want to trust Congress to pass laws that respect Constitutional rights, you need someone to have final say. If not the Supreme Court, then the ball is firmly in your court to provide a reasonable alternative.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
But you can't pick and choose the decisions you want to treat as "legitimate" -- because your idea of "inalienable rights" might be different from mine, and views of rights changes over time, thanks to a more enlightened view. Our system, including Supreme Court decisions, is particularly good at this. We've abolished slavery, enfranchised women, minorities, and debtors, just to name a few changes to rights in the U.S. I do not believe that rights are "inalienable" -- rather, they are a reflection of the way we would like to live, and the kind of society we want to live in. They are based upon long, hard experience with other systems. I would submit to you that, without a final arbiter (the Court), there would be no instrument for protecting Constitutional rights.
This does not mean that we cannot work to change the composition of the Supreme Court, if we feel that they are making rulings contrary to what we would like. But that does not make their rulings "illegitimate".
One can never surrender their rights. They can be taken from someone, but not freely. And your pragmatic view belies your feeling that it's not worth fighting for ... and that's what's sad about this country today. Don't you care?
I care absolutely passionately about rights in this country. There are multitudes of reasons, ranging from the fact that the U.S. fundamentally represents the sort of society in which the vast majority of us would like to live, given the alternatives, to the democratic means by which the laws, the Constitution and upheld rights are responsive to the will of the People.
It is precisely because rights are not inalienable (by which I mean, they can be taken away) that I care as much as I do.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
If you're attempting to demonstrate a straw-man argument, your own statement serves admirably.
The original poster stated:
I am less concerned with later judicial decisions regarding it; rather, what is important to understand is the intent of the framers when they wrote the amendment. Any future weakening of the constitution is invaild from the start, regardless of the Sumpreme Court decisions.
(emphasis added)
To which I replied:
If you want to ignore Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution, you need to explain how laws are to be screened for their adherence to individual rights. Should Congress simply be trusted to pass laws that do not violate constitutional rights, as the constitution implicitly allows? (BTW, judicial review is based upon several areas of legitimacy, including the fact that the Constitution itself allows the Supreme Court to settle all disputes to which the Federal Government is a party.)
Nowhere did I defend the Supreme Court against abolition. Rather, I addressed his argument that Supreme Court decisions were invalid when he didn't like the findings. My question to him (or to you) is: how are you going to judge a "legitimate" interpretation of the Constitution? If you don't want the Supreme Court to be the final word, what will serve?
By your admission the Framers were a contentious lot, but somehow they all agreed that the Tenth Admendment wasn't supposed to be a break on the Federal government, huh? Isn't that convenient? I suppose that the First admendment is also "largely symbolic" too
It's not a matter of convenience; rather, it's a matter of public record. Anti-Federalists wanted to insert the word "expressly", to limit the powers of the Government to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution. However, the majority voted it down, presumably recognizing the fact that Government (and the Constitution upon which it is based) must change and adapt with the times. Most constitutional historians regard the 10th Amendment as the unsuccessful attempt to limit Federal powers that it was. You might want to check out what FindLaw has to say on the subject.
So is the very idea of rights in the first place! Your point?
I assume you're saying that rights are "what we believe ought to be". If so, we agree. My point was, I take issue with the previous poster's implication that the Supreme Court has somehow gone against some notion of "absolute rights". If you indeed agree with me, you should take issue with this, too.
My example of totalitarian societies was simply a refutation of the notion of absolute rights. It had nothing to do with whether "we in the US should tolerate the infringement,if not the outright denial of our rights".
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
However, I do maintain that, if a warrant is served, under the law and the Constitution, the police do have the right to the specific material they are seeking. I believe the courts are the proper (and smarter) place to fight police abuses, overall.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
This is, of course, your opinion. You might as well say, "I don't like their decisions" -- unless, of course, you can provide examples other than your own subjective interpretations?
The Court does not determine what is or is not Constitutional; it determines what the government is going to treat as Constitutional or not.
This is simply playing with words.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not the exclusive domains of Libertarians -- in fact, I'd argue that much or Libertarianism would result in a major loss of the above, carried to it's logical extreme.
Regardless, you're free to believe whatever you wish about the 10th Amendment, of course. However:
1) If you want to ignore Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution, you need to explain how laws are to be screened for their adherence to individual rights. Should Congress simply be trusted to pass laws that do not violate constitutional rights, as the constitution implicitly allows? (BTW, judicial review is based upon several areas of legitimacy, including the fact that the Constitution itself allows the Supreme Court to settle all disputes to which the Federal Government is a party.)
2) The "intent of the Framers when they wrote the Amendment" is a wildly subjective thing, given the fact that they were quite a contentious lot, and each had their own agendas (gee, sounds quite a bit like -- today!). However, my second reference completely shoots down this objection, already: the Framers specifically voted down proposals to make the 10th Amendment a brake upon Federal powers.
3) The notion that one cannot surrender rights is a mixing of the notions of what is and what ought to be. One most certainly can surrender rights -- people living in totalitarian countries do it all the time.
4) I have absolutely no idea where you got your last paragraph.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
You're implying that protections against police abuse rely upon the irretrievable hiding of information from the police. The illogic of this scenario is that a warranted search that turned up papers with the above information would in no way violate your rights. Again, the 4th Amendment relies upon the court system, not individuals, to control police abuses. Efficiency of the actual search is not an issue.
Furthermore, you can argue 5th Amendment protections, regardless.
As I've said before, the potential for abuse of power (i.e. ignoring the need for a warrant) is another issue, entirely. Such abuse is possible in any system, including the "old-fashioned one" in which the police had to enter suspect's homes manually. To wit:
1) If someone in law enforcement wanted to ignore the warrant system, he/she would have multiple illegal options open to him or her, regardless,
2) In a small-scale, corrupt system where the police have free reign, the limiting of police to "traditional" efficiency won't help you much,
3) In the large scale, such actions are prohibited by Constitutional protections, and would result in a major waste of time by (and probable legal action against) the police involved.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Sorry, that should be: "The 4th Amendment's protection against illegal search and seizure does not rely upon the 'difficulty of conducting a search' or the efficiency of police operations."
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
The 4th Amendment's protection against illegal search and seizure does rely upon the "difficulty of conducting a search" or the efficiency of police operations. Rather, the entire rationale of the Amendment is the use of a warrant system for such protection.
That's not to say that ease of police operations does not affect the potential for end-running around the warrant system (i.e. ignoring the law -- of course, it would little avail the police to build a case based upon such illegally-obtained information). However, we're not talking about placing cameras in every home, to be turned on for survelliance purposes with a warrant. We're talking about the police, with a warrant, entering a home.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
This is a clear violation of our fourth amendment right to a warrant that "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
This has nothing to do with weather the warrant is sealed. Rather, it has to do with whether the warrant is too general. As I already remarked, fishing expeditions are explicitly disallowed. If this rule is ignored, it really doesn't matter whether the warrant is sealed or not; or for that matter, whether one is served at all.
as well as the ninth and tenth amendments, which restricts the feds to only the enumerated powers in the constitution.
Supreme Court case law, as well as history, strongly disagrees with you. Regarding the Tenth, the Supreme Court has ruled: ''The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered." (1) The vast majority of expansions of federal government have been contested before the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Sometimes the Supreme Court has struck down these expansions as unconstitutional; sometimes it has upheld them as constitutional. IOW, today's Federal powers have passed the consitutional requirement of judicial interpretation of the constitution.
The Tenth Amendment is a largely symbolic amendment. A look at its history reveals that the Founding Fathers did not intend it to be a severe brake on federal powers. This is proven by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word ''expressly'' before the word ''delegated.'' (2)
The wording of the Amendment, according to numerous decisions, leaves implied Federal powers intact.
References:
1. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941).
2. Annals of Congress, 1897 (1791).
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
And the difference here would be...? If someone (including the police) wanted to plant something, they wouldn't need a sealed warrant to do it.
w/ a secret warrant you dont know! so how can you build a defence for something you can't see comming?
If you're going to mount a defense, the last place and time to do it are when the police are conducting a search. That's true whether you know at the time that the search is being conducted. Building a defense, rather, is done in the courts.
It sounds like you want to have a chance to hide stuff that looks bad. I can understand that. But with a non-sealed warrant, you can't see it coming, either. The only difference is that you can see them rummaging around your house.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
If the police can get warrants for fishing expeditions (which are specifically forbidden by the Bill of Rights, BTW), it doesn't matter whether they fish now or later, with or without your immediate knowledge.
The only grounds I could see for problems with this are whether it would be used for entrapment; that's a concern with many police operations, and at least this one requires a warrant to initiate. Entrapment already has quite a bit of case law regulating what the police can and can't do.
I can find lots of other issues that are quite a bit more alarming than a new form of warranted search.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
You're screwed either way. The real problem (if any) resides in how easy it is to get warrants.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
The 4th Amendment says absolutely nothing about the necessity of warrants being open.
Quite simply, I can understand your objections, but if you have a problem with it, I suggest you strike up a campaign to change the law, if necessary.
Me, the only difference I see is whether you know you're screwed sooner rather than later.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
This scheme would use secret sealed search warrents, and you would never know that the feds are spying on you.
Granted, but I'm not sure the above difference rests in the realm of constitutionality; sounds more like preference to me.
Anyone know of any legal decisions that would support the above difference as being important?
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Whether it's too easy these days to GET warrants is another issue, entirely.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from