I see people calling for boycotts of AZ. Even a misguided call to boycott AZ Iced Tea, which is based in NY state. I hear complaints about racial profiling. Racial profiling is, BTW, illegal. It’s also done every day. Has been, and will probably continue, and not just in AZ. Of course there are the inevitable claims that this will hurt “this or that” party politically. Or be used to suppress the vote. Etc.
But what I haven’t really seen is anyone complaining about this:
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.
I’ve begun to wonder if anyone actually understands what the bill of rights is for, or why those 10 amendments were included almost immediately after the constitution was signed.
Some of the framers wanted to spell out, specifically, what rights no government could touch. Ever. Under any circumstances.
The only real opposition to the idea of including specific individual rights (yes, even the 2nd), BTW, was from those who didn’t want to “limit” our rights to “just those”. The thought was that by spelling them out it could be inferred that others weren’t protected, or weren’t as important.
The framers were real big on not being told what to do.
BTW, the “tenthers” are dead wrong. States can’t over-ride the constitution. AZ, specifically, can’t over-ride the 4th no matter how “urgent” it is.
In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted.
Is the 4th amendment well and truly dead, in America?