Seach Me
So the Supreme Court overruled a Federal Court decision and now the Police can use a dog to search your car if you pulled over for any minor traffic violation. I have to admit I'm a little confused here. Every new clean water regulation is a sign that our country is becoming the next USSR, but allowing searches without a warrant or even probable cause is a ok in the world freest nation? If I remember history correctly, the one thing the Founding Fathers were most concerned with was too much government intrusion into the lives of citizens. The Bill of Rights sets out to keep the Feds from grabbing too much power from the citizens. Where are all the anti-big government voices?
Posts
11 comments:
I guess the anti-big government forces are waiting for a stronger cause to back than nosy dogs. I'm all for freedom, but I have a hard time seeing how a bomb or drug sniffing dog at my next traffic ticket diminishes my freedom. Although I love your libertarian instincts.
Ah, the noble sentiment of "if it doesn't affect me, why should I care?" Hard to argue against such lofty ideals but I'll try. First, I'm guessing that the aptly named Stalin Malone figures that since he doesn't traffic or use any drugs, let the dog sniff away. I appreciate that, but I for would balk at the idea of the police doing a full body cavity search if I'm caught jay walking. But, I guess since I don't use drugs, I should happily bend over and spread 'em. BUT, what really bugs me is the "if it doesn't affect me, why should I care" mentality, is that when it comes to something one does care about, people tend to get all worked up. Take the Pledge of Allegiance. Using Mr. Malone's reasoning, why should anyone who doesn't have kids care if "under God" is in the pledge? Yet, time and time again, we hear about "activist Judges" abusing the Constitution. By not caring when the Supreme Court overrides the Fourth Amendment for the goal of fighting drug proliferation, your letting the very culture of judicial activism you despise flourish. You should care about this ruling because it does affect you. The problem is that the conservatives have no ultimate code on this issue. When they say "we want strict constructionists on the bench" what they mean is, "we want judges who will uphold what we want when the Constitution goes our way, and we want judges who will look the manipulate the Constitution when it makes us uncomfortable." I would have much, much more respect for the right if they said, "we don't like restricting the police's ability to use dogs to sniff cars that rolled a stop sign, but we have a stated belief in adhering to the Constitution." As soon as they start playing a relative game, "stopping drug trafficking is more important that the Fourth Amendment" then the entire position is blown, and they cannot be upset at judicial activism. They can be upset that not all judges see things their way, but not that some judges are manipulating the Constitution against their goals. It just becomes part of the game.
Finally, the issue isn't "should you care if you don't use drugs" the issue is "should the government have that much power over you?" Because the one thing we all know is the government does nothing but grow. The power you just said you don't mind them having will do the same. For kicks the Fourth Amendment states "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." Having a dog sniff your car after you've been pulled over for illegal lane shift violates every provision above. This isn't "do whatever it takes to get the druggies" its about protecting one of the biggest defenses the people have against an invasive government. If you're quiet on this issue, don't be surprised when the same happens to an issue you "care" about.
So, Mr. Blogger, are you also opposed to the searching of luggage and passengers at the airports? It would certainly be a shame if you didn't "care" about that.
What the words "conservative" and libertarian" have come to mean in recent years is a central question worth asking when we ask what the Constitution means today.
At the risk of oversimplifying, the modern libertarian would ask what the Constitution means today only to illustrate what he or she considers its enduring guarantee of the individual's rights to live freely.
The modern conservative--Nixon's "law and order" conservative--shares the libertarian's pocketbook concerns, but views the Constitution as a document that balances liberty against security--security being the greater good of which our armed forces and police are agents.
Sure you can be conservative and libertarian depending upon how you define each term, but I'd suggest that the definitions above generally reflect popular opinion.
So before asking where all the anti-big government voices are, it's important to know who all the anti-big government voices are, the issues for which they're willing to speak up, and why conservatives seem strangely silent to us as we insist on traditional definitions that are changing with the times, and our fears.
Wow, someone's been raised on the modern media. Take a nuanced issue and go right for the fear factor. It’s nice to see that scare tactics abound on both sides of the aisle. I seem to remember a certain Mr. Malone getting very upset at the Dems for painting a less than rosy picture of GOP Medicare plans to Florida's elderly population. I’m also willing to bet you’re getting fired up about the Dems and their scare tactics on Social Security. You've learned much grasshopper. You also did an excellent job of completely ignoring the court case in question and going right for the hypothetical by stating a "bomb” sniffing dog next to “drug” sniffing, thus starting the move from drugs to DANGER.. I'm not real sure how many drug sniffing dogs are on patrol on the nations highways, but switching a drug case to a terrorist case is a nice move. Following up with bombs on airplanes sealed the deal. Now, the debate is about the death of innocents, and I’m clearly “pro-terrorist.” I can’t imagine why there’s not more civilized discourse in American politics. I wonder why the Dem’s and the GOP can’t work together more and move the country forward?
I want to piggy back of off Mike3000's point. The modern conservative is economically small government, but socially big government, with economics trumping social values. I think its the birth of a new political philosophy.
It really is a shame that you can't take the discussion at face value. The link to the article had expired and I was unable to read said article. Therefore, I assumed the sniffing was for one of the only two things that I can think of sniffing for - drugs or bombs. However, I don't see how either one changes the argument one bit. Either there are times when you are willing to abandon the 4th amendment or there are not. I'm not sure which way you bend on this as you chose not to answer my follow up. I assume there are times when you are willing to sacrifice freedom for safety and that was why I asked the question. Please, correct me if I am wrong.
I apologize if it felt like a trap or a dodge. I did assume you would say you support the airport checks and that that would weaken your initial argument, but also allow for a more clarifying and valuable discussion.
Peace.
Ok, maybe I am getting sensitive in my old age. I took the sound bite response to a several paragraph issue too harshly, my bad.
But I do disagree that saying I'm for searches pre-flight weakens my position. In fact, I think you've done an excellent job of exposing the political stupidity that is the "strict constructionist judge." Clearly one of Bush's strict constructionist’s would have tossed this appeal as there is no warrant, oath, or clear description of what the cops are looking for. Again, when someone says "constructionist" they mean, "read the Constitution like I do." Then, if the people don't like the strict reading of the constitution, we the people can have an "open dialog" on the topic, and work towards a new amendment. At least that would be the case if you follow the Gay Marriage theory as laid out by Bush.
Look, I never claimed to be a perfect person reading a perfect document. The Constitution is about bending, and it is meant to be an ideal in an unideal world. It’s also set up to handle societal changes. This is why it is a living document, it was never meant to be strict. The preamble itself sets up conflict. "Inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is in a document that allows slavery. Also, criminals in jail have certainly had their freedom taken away, and what if killing lots of people makes me happy? Mike3000 correctly points out the struggle between freedom and safety. I think of these principles as palm trees, not oaks. Let’s go back to your point about airline travel. My position is that it's ok to search for bombs, guns, etc, but not drugs, for example. The difference between the airline scenario and traffic tickets is that of choice. If I don't want to be searched, I can opt not to fly. However, when the threshold for searches is so low that doing 56 in a 55 gets my car searched, then that is giving away too much. Because what's the next step? I would certainly "feel" safer if every single white male in their 30's had to register with the state and wear an ankle bracelet because by profile this group has far and away the highest percentage of child molesters and serial killers. I would also "feel" safer if there were no guns. But I would never live in a nation where the above scenarios take place. So, no, I don't think supporting x-ray machines on planes takes away from my point. Unless, you can convince me that a 17 year old boy with a few ounces of pot in his car poses the same threat as a bomb on an airliner. Think of it this way. If you have a child, you would do anything for that child's safety. Jump in front of a charging grizzly, whatever. Now you take that child to the playground, which is loaded with dangerous stuff. You can elect to not let your child play on the monkey bars, or you can let them. Letting them play puts them in danger, but you also watch them very closely, ready to spring to action if need be. I don't think that you can then say "well, clearly if you willing to let your child engage in some dangerous activity, then you don't care about your child's safety," or "that if you let your child do some dangerous things, then you must let your child do all dangerous things." I can "allow" the feds to check for bombs, but also say, "ok, you can do this now because we're at war, but I'm watching you."
But let me put one back to you. Would you mind if cops could just randomly check your house? Go through your stuff? If the barrier to search is as low as traffic violations, what if you left you water hose on during a draught? Could the cops search your house for any random thing? How about if you have an outstanding parking violation? Would that open your door? Equating all crimes as equal by saying that bombs and pot are the same thing and should be treated the same way paves the way for massive abuse.
Also, so as not to bias the source. A google search of "supreme court dog" gives lots of sites reporting the story.
I have to confess, and I mean it respectfully, that I have a hard time following this argument because it is tough to tell what points you are arguing for and what points you are assuming in others and then building points off of. I hope you'll keep that in mind when I appear to misstate your points. It is an honest error.
I understood your original point as saying, "We should all care about the dog sniffing law beacause it is an errosion of the 4th amendment and since it errodes that amendment it is wrong." And then when I countered with it doesn't bother me, you said, "Well if this errosion of the amendment doesn't bother you aren't standing on principle." I think that is a solid argument. I asked about the baggage screening to see if you were solidly pro 4th amendment. You are not. Which is, of course just fine. We both grant as a given that there are times when the 4th amendment should weaken so security can increase.
Then I think this turned into a criticism of "strict constructionist judges". I'm not sure what is meant by that, but I think you mean the types of judges that conservatives often support. My general response is - no one says jurisprudence is interpretation free. Conservatives argue for an interpretation that attempts to discern and then apply the original intent. Liberals are less inclined to seek the Founding Father's original attempt and prefer to construct new takes on the do's and dont's of the Constitution. There are no people who argue for no interpretation, that would be absurd as considering the word "unreasonable" in the 4th amendment makes perfectly clear.
So, discussing whether or not sniffing dogs or snooping airport security is an acceptable weakening of the 4th amendment is a good and meaningful pursuit. But the given is that both are a weakening of the amendment which is what my question was meant to make clear. There is nothing objectively truthful about the idea that it's not acceptable in drugs but acceptable in terrorism. That is simply a matter of opinion.
You asked about random searches of my home. This is an infringement of the 4th amendment that I would not support. However, my luggage being x-rayed or my car being sniffed are infringements that I am willing to sacrifice for the securty that Mike3000 discussed. But, I am certainly open to hearing a well reasoned argument against both.
Wow, 11 comments! That Unknown Blogger sure knows how to stir up discussion. Why is he wasting his talents in the financial sector? Oh yeah...chicks.
Post a Comment