Why Isn't the Fourth Amendment Classified as Top Secret?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Notice how much the Fourth Amendment tells our enemies. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," it states, "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."

The Framers are usually considered patriots. Yet they gave traitors and criminals in their midst such powerful knowledge about concealing evidence of skullduggery! Today every terrorist with access to a pocket Constitution is privy to the same text. And thanks to the Supreme Court's practice of publishing its opinions, al-Qaeda need only have an Internet connection to gain a very nuanced, specific understanding of how the Fourth Amendment is applied in individual cases, how it constrains law enforcement, and how to exploit those limits.

Why Isn't the Fourth Amendment Classified as Top Secret? - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

A good question. If people know their rights then they'll simply hide behind them while doing terrible things.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They do.

Watch what the far far right reactionaries so, while calling themselves conservatives instead of libertarians.

No, the Constitution was not an original libertarian document.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They do.

Watch what the far far right reactionaries so, while calling themselves conservatives instead of libertarians.

No, the Constitution was not an original libertarian document.

Agreed, but in terms of governance the Constitution is much closer to what a libertarian would prefer than what it has become.

 

[WinterBorn]

Notice how much the Fourth Amendment tells our enemies. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," it states, "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."

The Framers are usually considered patriots. Yet they gave traitors and criminals in their midst such powerful knowledge about concealing evidence of skullduggery! Today every terrorist with access to a pocket Constitution is privy to the same text. And thanks to the Supreme Court's practice of publishing its opinions, al-Qaeda need only have an Internet connection to gain a very nuanced, specific understanding of how the Fourth Amendment is applied in individual cases, how it constrains law enforcement, and how to exploit those limits.

Why Isn't the Fourth Amendment Classified as Top Secret? - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

A good question. If people know their rights then they'll simply hide behind them while doing terrible things.

Yes, people "hide behind" their rights when they do terrible things. That does not make the rights any less solid. If they were kept secret, they would be violated over and over by those in authority.

Living in a free society is not safe. It never has been and it never will be.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Notice how much the Fourth Amendment tells our enemies. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," it states, "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."

The Framers are usually considered patriots. Yet they gave traitors and criminals in their midst such powerful knowledge about concealing evidence of skullduggery! Today every terrorist with access to a pocket Constitution is privy to the same text. And thanks to the Supreme Court's practice of publishing its opinions, al-Qaeda need only have an Internet connection to gain a very nuanced, specific understanding of how the Fourth Amendment is applied in individual cases, how it constrains law enforcement, and how to exploit those limits.

Why Isn't the Fourth Amendment Classified as Top Secret? - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

A good question. If people know their rights then they'll simply hide behind them while doing terrible things.

Yes, people "hide behind" their rights when they do terrible things. That does not make the rights any less solid. If they were kept secret, they would be violated over and over by those in authority.

Living in a free society is not safe. It never has been and it never will be.

Which annihilates the argument that The Terrorists™ are being aided by the public knowing that the U.S. government, in cahoots with plenty of other governments, is spying on everyone on the planet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They do.

Watch what the far far right reactionaries so, while calling themselves conservatives instead of libertarians.

No, the Constitution was not an original libertarian document.

Agreed, but in terms of governance the Constitution is much closer to what a libertarian would prefer than what it has become.

Yes, libertarians would want a much less involved government in folks' lives.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why Isn't the Fourth Amendment Classified as Top Secret? - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

A good question. If people know their rights then they'll simply hide behind them while doing terrible things.

Yes, people "hide behind" their rights when they do terrible things. That does not make the rights any less solid. If they were kept secret, they would be violated over and over by those in authority.

Living in a free society is not safe. It never has been and it never will be.

Which annihilates the argument that The Terrorists™ are being aided by the public knowing that the U.S. government, in cahoots with plenty of other governments, is spying on everyone on the planet.

You are right. Snowden confirmed what everybody suspected.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Notice how much the Fourth Amendment tells our enemies. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," it states, "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."

The Framers are usually considered patriots. Yet they gave traitors and criminals in their midst such powerful knowledge about concealing evidence of skullduggery! Today every terrorist with access to a pocket Constitution is privy to the same text. And thanks to the Supreme Court's practice of publishing its opinions, al-Qaeda need only have an Internet connection to gain a very nuanced, specific understanding of how the Fourth Amendment is applied in individual cases, how it constrains law enforcement, and how to exploit those limits.

Why Isn't the Fourth Amendment Classified as Top Secret? - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

A good question. If people know their rights then they'll simply hide behind them while doing terrible things.

It's fair to say that rights we don't know we have wont get asserted and thus are more likely to be infringed. But since the Constitution isn't usually osmething taught in grade school to the extend it should be, most people aren't going to care until the issue of their liberty actually comes up, if ever.

I'd love to see a citizenry knowledgable in the law but most don't dig it. Maybe my being Jewish has me tilted towards legal studies more than non-Jews since Judaism is all about law. I dunno. Would say everyone should study commonly enforced laws like you experience in run-ins with police though. That only lawyers know such information seems fundamentally unfair.

 

[George Costanza]

No problem. Give police the power to search bad guys without any probable cause. Since we are all good guys, we won't be subjected to searches. Everybody wins!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No problem. Give police the power to search bad guys without any probable cause. Since we are all good guys, we won't be subjected to searches. Everybody wins!

Well, that's the argument used to justify these sorts of things in the foreign policy realm. Why not apply that principle universally?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Notice how much the Fourth Amendment tells our enemies. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," it states, "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."

The Framers are usually considered patriots. Yet they gave traitors and criminals in their midst such powerful knowledge about concealing evidence of skullduggery! Today every terrorist with access to a pocket Constitution is privy to the same text. And thanks to the Supreme Court's practice of publishing its opinions, al-Qaeda need only have an Internet connection to gain a very nuanced, specific understanding of how the Fourth Amendment is applied in individual cases, how it constrains law enforcement, and how to exploit those limits.

Why Isn't the Fourth Amendment Classified as Top Secret? - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

A good question. If people know their rights then they'll simply hide behind them while doing terrible things.

Um, no.

This is a naïve, uninformed, and incorrect perception of 4th Amendment jurisprudence, which is both complex and comprehensive.

Moreover, criminal suspects do not ‘hide behind’ the 4th Amendment, as it compels the state to afford citizens due process and follow the rule of law, and as long as the state indeed affords due process and follows the rule of law, criminal suspects can be successfully prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

If terrorists seek to commit criminal acts against Americans, they can be successfully stopped, detained, and prosecuted – where there is no need to make the 4th Amendment ‘classified.’ And if the state fails to successfully prosecute alleged terrorist suspects, the fault lies with the state, not 4th Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Notice how much the Fourth Amendment tells our enemies. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," it states, "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."

The Framers are usually considered patriots. Yet they gave traitors and criminals in their midst such powerful knowledge about concealing evidence of skullduggery! Today every terrorist with access to a pocket Constitution is privy to the same text. And thanks to the Supreme Court's practice of publishing its opinions, al-Qaeda need only have an Internet connection to gain a very nuanced, specific understanding of how the Fourth Amendment is applied in individual cases, how it constrains law enforcement, and how to exploit those limits.

Why Isn't the Fourth Amendment Classified as Top Secret? - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

A good question. If people know their rights then they'll simply hide behind them while doing terrible things.

It's fair to say that rights we don't know we have wont get asserted and thus are more likely to be infringed. But since the Constitution isn't usually osmething taught in grade school to the extend it should be, most people aren't going to care until the issue of their liberty actually comes up, if ever.

I'd love to see a citizenry knowledgable in the law but most don't dig it. Maybe my being Jewish has me tilted towards legal studies more than non-Jews since Judaism is all about law. I dunno. Would say everyone should study commonly enforced laws like you experience in run-ins with police though. That only lawyers know such information seems fundamentally unfair.

Actually not – as the 6th Amendment codifies citizens’ right to counsel.

 

[emilynghiem]

No duh! The whole legal system profits from abusing the 5th Amendment or other laws, disrupting due process and equal justice in the guise of "defending clients interests." If you can hire a lawyer to get around the laws, and BLOCK any information or evidence on any technicality you can, you increase your chances of buying your way out of crime. That is how OJ Simpson beat the criminal charges, though not the civil case which didn't have the same burden of proof to meet and also more evidence was permitted that was blocked in the criminal case.

it is not the job of the govt to teach people morality.

It is the job of the churches and religions to teach people higher laws beyond what the state can legally pursue.

If the churches did their job, and all people understood spiritual laws, and how any abuses comes back to hurt you and prevent you from getting what you really want (and more people got help with spiritual therapy and cure to stop problems causing crime and abuse),
then we wouldn't have a backlog of problems for the state to address AFTER wrongs occur.

That is the job of the church to teach people to do right for its own sake,
so this doesn't become a problem of the state. the state can require detention of dangerous people, or restitution for wrongs committed, but cannot regulate the process by which people get therapy or help they need to correct criminal or abusive behavior.

That part is internally by choice, and the corrections/recovery process is as much a mental and spiritual process as it requires physical steps. the govt cannot regulate the process that goes on inside someone.

Notice how much the Fourth Amendment tells our enemies. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," it states, "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."

The Framers are usually considered patriots. Yet they gave traitors and criminals in their midst such powerful knowledge about concealing evidence of skullduggery! Today every terrorist with access to a pocket Constitution is privy to the same text. And thanks to the Supreme Court's practice of publishing its opinions, al-Qaeda need only have an Internet connection to gain a very nuanced, specific understanding of how the Fourth Amendment is applied in individual cases, how it constrains law enforcement, and how to exploit those limits.

Why Isn't the Fourth Amendment Classified as Top Secret? - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

A good question. If people know their rights then they'll simply hide behind them while doing terrible things.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's fair to say that rights we don't know we have wont get asserted and thus are more likely to be infringed. But since the Constitution isn't usually osmething taught in grade school to the extend it should be, most people aren't going to care until the issue of their liberty actually comes up, if ever.

I'd love to see a citizenry knowledgable in the law but most don't dig it. Maybe my being Jewish has me tilted towards legal studies more than non-Jews since Judaism is all about law. I dunno. Would say everyone should study commonly enforced laws like you experience in run-ins with police though. That only lawyers know such information seems fundamentally unfair.

YES I agree that people are NOT equal if we don't have equal knowledge, access, training and assistance with the law -- including conflict resolution to prevent interests from one side from being defended OVER the other, which isn't equal protection under the law.

(If CCJones thinks "access to counsel" is adequate, that isn't including the DISPARITY in legal resources between state appointed and private lawyers, or lawsuits where you can't bring a case if you can't afford a lawyer, or cases against govt that involve IMMUNITY which is very expensive if not impossible to beat; and the fact that there is no guarantee you will win your case, in an adversarial system. the long process that it takes, many people cannot afford it, or even if they win they never see the reward. the only way I see to ensure equal justice is to AVOID the wrongdoing in the first place.)

As long as we do not have equality under law, that is why govt, political parties, media, and corporations can take advantage of the gap and become the middle man that manipulates who has more influence than others.

If we based govt decisions and policies on consensus, and required all citizens and leaders to be educated and trained in mediation to facilitate solutions that represent all people equally, and protect ALL interests mutually INCLUSIVELY not based on bullying, we might see "equal justice" and "equal protections" under law to meet our own principles.

Right now, we are in constant violation. People are not equal, so anything goes in politics.

 

[emilynghiem]

No problem. Give police the power to search bad guys without any probable cause. Since we are all good guys, we won't be subjected to searches. Everybody wins!

Well, that's the argument used to justify these sorts of things in the foreign policy realm. Why not apply that principle universally?

I would screen "bad guys" out to begin with
by encouraging districts to sign and enforce agreed codes of conducts among them,
where all residents agree to policies and procedures, from policing to conflict resolution
and restitution for any wrongs or damages incurred, in order to live in that district.

Then only the people with lawabiding intent would agree to be responsible for costs they incur; and anyone who doesn't intend to take responsibility can be screened out in advance.

People can agree to get counseling or other assistance if they have some issue that prevents them from being financially or legally responsible. But either every citizen must agree to follow the same terms and procedures, or have a legal guardian or sponsor willing to sign on for that responsibility.

How much crime would that deter if people were required to pay the costs?
Wouldn't that (a) teach people in advance the costs (b) help screen people out who
aren't legally or mentally competent enough to prevent from imposing costs on others?

Why do we wait for a crime to be committed to screen out dangerous people?
If people have to apply to go to college, and if immigrants have to apply for citizenship, why not require all citizens to agree to follow basic laws and/or pay standard costs if they break them?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Notice how much the Fourth Amendment tells our enemies. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," it states, "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."

The Framers are usually considered patriots. Yet they gave traitors and criminals in their midst such powerful knowledge about concealing evidence of skullduggery! Today every terrorist with access to a pocket Constitution is privy to the same text. And thanks to the Supreme Court's practice of publishing its opinions, al-Qaeda need only have an Internet connection to gain a very nuanced, specific understanding of how the Fourth Amendment is applied in individual cases, how it constrains law enforcement, and how to exploit those limits.

Why Isn't the Fourth Amendment Classified as Top Secret? - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

A good question. If people know their rights then they'll simply hide behind them while doing terrible things.

Um, no.

This is a naïve, uninformed, and incorrect perception of 4th Amendment jurisprudence, which is both complex and comprehensive.

Moreover, criminal suspects do not ‘hide behind’ the 4th Amendment, as it compels the state to afford citizens due process and follow the rule of law, and as long as the state indeed affords due process and follows the rule of law, criminal suspects can be successfully prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

If terrorists seek to commit criminal acts against Americans, they can be successfully stopped, detained, and prosecuted – where there is no need to make the 4th Amendment ‘classified.’ And if the state fails to successfully prosecute alleged terrorist suspects, the fault lies with the state, not 4th Amendment jurisprudence.

I think somebody missed the point.

 

[George Costanza]

No duh! The whole legal system profits from abusing the 5th Amendment or other laws, disrupting due process and equal justice in the guise of "defending clients interests."

As i read what you are saying here, you seem to think that defending those accused of crime is somehow an abuse of the 5th Amendment, Due Process, Equal Justice or "other laws." It works exactly the opposite. All of these things you mention are there to protect those accused of crime. The defense would have no reason whatsoever to want to "abuse" any of them. The defense ENFORCES these various protections against abuse by the police and the prosecution.

Sounds to me as if (1) you could never envision yourself ever being charged with a crime and (2) you do not believe that the police and/or the prosecution ever makes a mistake or, worse, intentionally proceeds against someone they know is not guilty. Fuzzy thinking on both counts.

 

[Moonglow]

Notice how much the Fourth Amendment tells our enemies. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," it states, "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."

The Framers are usually considered patriots. Yet they gave traitors and criminals in their midst such powerful knowledge about concealing evidence of skullduggery! Today every terrorist with access to a pocket Constitution is privy to the same text. And thanks to the Supreme Court's practice of publishing its opinions, al-Qaeda need only have an Internet connection to gain a very nuanced, specific understanding of how the Fourth Amendment is applied in individual cases, how it constrains law enforcement, and how to exploit those limits.

Why Isn't the Fourth Amendment Classified as Top Secret? - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

A good question. If people know their rights then they'll simply hide behind them while doing terrible things.

It's fair to say that rights we don't know we have wont get asserted and thus are more likely to be infringed. But since the Constitution isn't usually osmething taught in grade school to the extend it should be, most people aren't going to care until the issue of their liberty actually comes up, if ever.

I'd love to see a citizenry knowledgable in the law but most don't dig it. Maybe my being Jewish has me tilted towards legal studies more than non-Jews since Judaism is all about law. I dunno. Would say everyone should study commonly enforced laws like you experience in run-ins with police though. That only lawyers know such information seems fundamentally unfair.

The information is there to research, if you want to....Jewish or not....

 

[George Costanza]

No problem. Give police the power to search bad guys without any probable cause. Since we are all good guys, we won't be subjected to searches. Everybody wins!

Well, that's the argument used to justify these sorts of things in the foreign policy realm. Why not apply that principle universally?

I was being sarcastic. How do you differentiate the bad guys from the good guys before the fact? A rule like this (applied universally or not) would give police unfettered license to search anyone at any time without any probable cause. Not a good idea.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No problem. Give police the power to search bad guys without any probable cause. Since we are all good guys, we won't be subjected to searches. Everybody wins!

Well, that's the argument used to justify these sorts of things in the foreign policy realm. Why not apply that principle universally?

I was being sarcastic. How do you differentiate the bad guys from the good guys before the fact? A rule like this (applied universally or not) would give police unfettered license to search anyone at any time without any probable cause. Not a good idea.

So was I.