Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The Constitution provides for two means of redress.....the federal judiciary and the amendment process.
|
one slight correction. the amendment process is specifically to alter the constitution, not provide a means of redress.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Its hard to imagine they envisioned amendments each time an (intentionally vague?) clause of the Constitution was subject to interpretation....or we would have a hell of alot more than 26 amendments in 200+ years.
|
which is why there is such a steep obstacle to overcome when altering it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
"unreasonable" (search and seizure) is a term in the Constitution...as is "speedy" (trial), "excessive" (bail), "cruel and unusual" (punishment).
IMO and understanding, these are intentionally vague.
These werent invented BY the courts, but were envisioned to be subject to interpretation by the courts.
|
I disagree, but only because I think the courts have swayed from their original position of protecting rights to protecting government interests.
IMO, unreasonable was used to prevent the things that the british soldiers had done, like writing their own warrants or stopping wagons on the road for searching. seems that it didn't last even 200 years. There are qualifications written in to the 4th that specifically outline how searches and seizures are legal and we certainly don't have that today, but you'll be sure to hear alot of politicians say that they are 'reasonable' to protect us from ourselves.