 |
Add to My Group
Bushian apologetics
By Mark Anderson (about the author) Page 1 of 1 page(s)
For OpEdNews: Mark Anderson - Writer
His first ad nauseam excuse for warrantless searches is that contra legem searches aren't unprecedented. I should like to make clear that neither is rape unprecedented - does this make it okay? Pursuant to Brubaker's logic, everything the government does is ipso facto Constitutional.
Brubaker's next error is letting grammatical law obfuscate his vision of Constitutional law. By the way, statutory law has totally separate paragraphs in outline form, with each paragraph being equally-important and relating to the same main point. I wonder if Brubaker would dare use his analysis to nullify whole paragraphs of the PATRIOT Act.
The Fourth Amendment:
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.
That we are dealing with two independent clauses is something I do not dispute. But, what Brubaker says is that an "originalist" interpretation would be "first clause dominant." Translated: he sees only the proscription on "unreasonable searches." Ignoring the second clause, he then concocts his own Fourth Amendment with the help of that great Yale scholar, Akhil Amar. John Jay, eat your heart out.
Brubaker writes, "The first clause states the general rule: All searches must be 'reasonable.'"
Maybe I have bad eyes, but I'm not seeing anything about a warrantless search being okay, as long as it is "reasonable." It seems self-evident to me that the second clause explains what makes a search reasonable. Otherwise, pray tell me, what, objectively, makes a search reasonable or unreasonable? Although Brubaker doesn't explicitly answer this, I can only infer the arbitrary discretion of government agents.
According to Brubaker, "The second clause provides an important specification of the first: If a warrant does issue, it is per se unreasonable unless supported by probable cause, etc."
Every time I see Brubaker's hermeneutics my surprise quotient drops a few points. If he is saying a search is only unreasonable with a warrant, but without probable cause, then why get a warrant? Otherwise, since he says that a "reasonable" search needs no warrant, the only room left for a warrant would be for an unreasonable search.
[1] -
www.NoAnthraxVaccine.net
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
by Harris
$64.95
Lowest New Price $55.17
Number of pages: 350
Publisher: Routledge Cavendish
by Augusto Zimmermann
$9.95
Number of pages: 7
Publisher: Thomson Gale
by Pamela Williams
$35.27
Number of pages: 240
Publisher: Allen
by Brian Galligan
$29.95
Number of pages: 333
Publisher: University of Queensland Pr (Australia)
| No comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
