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.
This, the fourth amendment to the constitution of the United States of America, was formally proposed on September 25, 1789 as part of a package of enumerated rights and restrictions on the federal government’s powers that smoothed over a number of concerns that the various states had regarding the increased powers being delegated to the central government. Without these limitations, there was great concern that the federal government might inexorably grow into a tyranny of one form or another. It was ratified on December 15, 1791 after a great deal of debate, along with nine others that were felt to be similarly important.
Today the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill, H.R. 6304, which will effectively grant immunity to large corporations that actively aided the government in flagrantly violating this fundamental underlying principle of our legal system. The House of Representative is now officially in collusion with the U.S. Senate in turning not only turning a blind eye to the transgressions of the executive branch (as has been customary for decades), but in actively assisting in those transgressions by promising protection from legal repercussions to the direct agents of said transgressions.
Earlier this year I was disappointed when the U.S. Senate pushed a similar measure through over Chris Dodd’s attempt to filibuster, and heartened when it was soundly blocked by the House of Representatives. What changed here? Presumably when H.R. 6304 goes to the Senate, the same dance will be repeated, with the same results (cloture and passage over Dodd’s objections), and the President will sign it. What recourse does this leave?
By my count, we’ve got the following left:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.- 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.
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.No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
One out of ten isn’t so bad, is it? Or should I straighten out my guest room for company?
Full text of H.R. 6304 (PDF)
EFF Analysis of the bill (PDF)
The yeas and nays
*edit: Dive Into Mark posted a great, concise quote regarding the types of recourse available to the people.
Better get that guest room ready.
I was going to post on this topic, but quite honestly, I’ve simply been too pissed off about it to form any coherent thoughts.
—–BEGIN NSATT SNOOP BLOCK—–
building bomb tower terrorist grenade c4 explosive plot hijack
plane police feds white house guns dirty device convoy president
war chemical death drop off mule undercover launch rocket drug
covert cell sarin mass infidel Allah package subway mass losses
detain briefcase plane hidden phone listen threat massive dead
——END NSATT SNOOP BLOCK——
While I definitely agree with your assertions regarding the bill of rights, I’d really love to see some links to stories that back it, so I can use this entry to fuel my arguments!
The immediate cause of this article was the recent bill passed by the House, so I wasn’t looking to scrounge up flagrant trespassing against the other eight heavily-sullied amendments from the Bill of Rights.
The various offenses against the first and second amendment are readily found online. Basically look for any case where the ACLU or NRA lost. The fifth amendment has been repeatedly trampled upon during my lifetime, most recently and glaringly regarding non-POW detainees held by the federal government in Cuba and elsewhere. The sixth has a long history of neglect, again most recently and glaringly regarding non-POW detainees held by the federal government in Cuba and elsewhere. The right to a trial by jury in civil matters through binding arbitration clauses in a variety of types of contracts. The ninth and tenth amendments were likely the first casualties, having been trod upon every time the federal legislature exerts its interstate commerce powers as the “elastic clause.” The ninth means you should be able to smoke dope under federal law. The tenth means you should be able to smoke dope under state law if your state’s OK with it. That’s the “off the top of my head” version.
Anybody reading this can go fire up a search engine and spend a couple minutes confirming or refuting any of these points as they see fit. It’s still, nominally, a free country, after all.
Haha, yeah, I was merely curious if you had any specific examples in mind, but yeah, that confirms what’s in my head too. Thanks!
Ugh.
And a happy monday morning to you too.
I love history. U.S. history in particular. Now when I read about it it just makes me go, “What the hell happened!?”
If you really want to get cranked up, I suggest reading the classic, “Common Sense” by T. Paine. It just about makes me cry with frustration when I look at how and why this grand experiment started versus what its become. We really should stop lying to our selves and just put the B.O.R. and the Constitution in the Smithsonian under a plaque that reads “It was a neat idea”.
You’ll have to excuse me now. My government watcher is telling me that my Soylent Green is ready. Mmmmm. Tastes like “freedom”.
Turkish Prawn
Pingback: The cost of a vote » Burrowowl
Pingback: Independence Day