Big Dogs Weblog

Boston Terrorist Search Shows Abuse of American’s Rights

Apr 22, 2013 Political

[note]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. ~ Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution[/NOTE]

As one terrorist lay dead in Boston the other, his younger brother, was on the loose in Watertown Massachusetts. The police from many local, state and federal agencies descended on the town to find the accomplice to the deadly Boston Marathon Bombing. During the search the rights of the people were violated and very few objected or took a stand to prevent the intrusion of government into their lives.

Parts of Boston were locked down. Businesses were told not to open and residents were told to stay inside their homes. There is no indication that any order, executed in accordance with Massachusetts law, was implemented. People were told to stay put and they did. Was martial law declared? Why were people not allowed to move freely about town and go about their lives?

Then the police conducted a house to house search for the terror suspect. The police are well within their duties to knock on doors and ask if there is a problem or if people have seen the suspect. They are free to ask people if it is OK for them to come inside and look around.

But people are free to say no. Unfortunately, it appears as if people were not really given the chance. The police were outside with firearms pointed at doors and people were asked if it was OK to look around. No one can give free consent when faced with armed people. It amounts to coercion.

There are reports that at least one household told police that they did not consent to a search. Those folks were marched out of their house while the police conducted a search of the premises. This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Without a validly executed warrant the police have no right to enter someone’s home (barring a few limited exigent circumstances).

Forcing people from their homes at gunpoint (or even not at gunpoint) in order to search that home after the occupant has denied consent is a violation of the Constitution and those who did this should be held to account for what they did.

[note]Article XIV. Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures, of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities prescribed by the laws. ~Commonwealth of Massachusetts Constitution[/note]

The police did a great job hunting down the bad guy and this is in no way an indictment of their work in that regard BUT there is no excuse for violating the rights of citizens in order to catch a bad guy no matter how dangerous he is.

Our rights are enshrined and protected by the US Constitution (and as shown above, by the Massachusetts Constitution) to prevent these things from happening. To dismiss this as some extraordinary circumstance allows government to define or invent all kinds of circumstances in which they can ignore our rights.

And since people in Boston did not push back the police now know they can get away with further erosion of the people’s rights.

It is a sad time in America when the government violates rights. It is even sadder that people allow it to happen.

Does it bother anyone that the government can shut down an American city and infringe on the rights of Americans to find one terrorist but refused to send help to Americans in Benghazi where it would have been appropriate to secure the place and help Americans?

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

[jpsub]

Tags: boston, constitution, fourth amendment, infringe, lies

TSA Invokes Constitution When Convenient

May 15, 2011 Political

The great State of Texas has passed a law that makes it illegal for security screeners to touch people on certain parts of their bodies. This is in response to the invasion of privacy that takes place when TSA officers conduct enhanced pat downs of air travelers. The TSA has struck back in a posting at the TSA blog that lists its response to Texas as; you can’t do that because the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says states can’t regulate the federal government.

That is very true but only in cases where the actions of the federal government are allowed by the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government is responsible for the traveling public. Let us assume though, that the federal government would be allowed to regulate our travel under the Commerce Clause (it is stretched for so many things that this is not out of the question). That still would not allow the federal government to claim supremacy when the act involves the violation of our Constitutional rights. The actions by the TSA are a violation of our Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure without probable cause and without a warrant.

No matter how supreme the federal government is, it cannot invoke supremacy on issues where it is violating the Constitution or where it has no Constitutional authority in the matter. The Tenth Amendment gives the states or the people the supremacy over any item NOT listed in the Constitution.

If the TSA wants to drag out the dusty, seldom used copy of the Constitution that the agency has then it must be willing to accept the limits placed on the federal government by that very document. The federal government has no enumerated power to search people as the TSA agents are doing. NONE, period.

It is obvious that the TSA thinks it, as part of the federal government, has supremacy in this issue but the reality is Texas has exerted its Tenth Amendment right to supremacy over an issue not Constitutionally enumerated to the federal government.

Let us also not forget that Texas did not pass a law that interferes with airline travel so even if one can claim supremacy under Commerce, the law in question does not involve that. The Texas law simply says that if a screener touches certain areas of people’s bodies without probable cause or a warrant then they have committed a crime.

Setting off an alarm in the metal detector is not probable cause to touch people in areas that would have one arrested if done on the street. Being a baby or a child is not probable cause to molest a child in hopes of finding a bomb. Refusing to go through the X-Ray machine is no more probable cause for an invasive search than is refusing to allow a police officer to search your vehicle during a traffic stop. If police officers started pulling people who refused searches out of their cars and subjected them to the pat down performed by the TSA then every civil rights group would be up in arms and the people would be rebelling against such invasion. However, the TSA does the same thing and then has the nerve to claim it can do so and has supremacy over the states that try to stop it.

I am not sure the TSA wants to open the can of worms involved in citing the Constitution to rebuke a state because that would lead to closer scrutiny involving the Constitutionality of what the TSA is doing, the role of the federal government in the process and the violation of our Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights.

For those who say it is moot because we do not have a right to travel, the federal government has codified travel as a right that will not be impeded (if one agrees that government can regulate travel under Commerce then this law has to be allowed as part of that regulation).

TSA impedes us unnecessarily in the name of security. Remember folks, no terrorist has been caught by the TSA and the TSA routinely fails screening tests where “harmful” items are sneaked through security.

Not to worry though, the TSA does ensure our genitals are in place prior to boarding a plane…

Where our genitals are is not the issue here. The issue is where the TSA is keeping its collective heads…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]

Tags: constitution, fourth amendment, lies, supremacy, tenth amendment, texas, tsa

Redress of Grievances

Nov 16, 2010 Political

A little-known part of the First Amendment to the US Constitution says:

…and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So that’s a right that the people have, and the government that follows the Constitution does not have the ability to take that right from the people. But do we truly have that right today? Does it include more than just the ability to complain?

Tags: fourth amendment, redress, sexual assault, tsa

Al Franken And The Constitution

Oct 5, 2009 Political

Al Franken was questioning Assistant Attorney General David Kris with regard to the Patriot Act and Franken was particularly interested in the roving wire taps. Franken asked a few questions and then pulled out the copy of the Constitution that he received when he was sworn in and cited the Fourth Amendment. He then asked if Kris believed that the roving wire taps were in accordance with the Amendment. Kris explained that they were and cited the courts that have ruled on the issue.

Kris further explained that they actually go above and beyond what the FISA courts require.

It is also important to remember the Fourth Amendment deals with unreasonable searches and seizures.

I wrote long ago about the wire taps and the precedent as well as the court rulings. Carter, Clinton and a host of other presidents have done the same thing because it has been ruled as Constitutional and not unreasonable.

I agree with John at Powerline when he states:

Still, one can only commend Franken for reading that copy of the Constitution they gave him when he assumed office. Maybe he’ll let us know whether he finds anything about owning automobile companies and controlling American citizens’ health care.

I commend Franken for reading the Constitution even if he is fuzzy on what he has sworn with regard to it (“And I was sworn to uphold it, or support it anyway, and protect it”).

I have a copy of the Constitution that I carry with me. Every citizen should have one and every citizen should actually read it.

I would like to know how Franken weighs in on gun ownership and the right to keep and bear arms. I wonder if they get to that debate if he will wave his Constitution and cite the Second Amendment (which is the one that ensures all the others) while proudly affirming that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Or will he decide that this Amendment is different and does not deserve support. You see, Franken has been against gun ownership and for tighter control and only changed his views when he ran for office:

Franken has expressed past reservation about private gun ownership and admitted to attending marches for gun-control; in Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot And Other Observations, he wrote that having guns in the home was “too dangerous” and included mocking language about needing a shotgun for every room of the house. In 2003’s book Oh, The Things I Know! he also wrote that those who donate to the NRA should volunteer at hospitals that treat gunshot victims. During the campaign, Franken took a more moderate stance, saying he supported the right to own and bear arms for protection and hunting, but it’s unclear how those statements will transfer to his Senate votes. Who Runs Gov

So it would seem that Franken is one of those folks who waves the Constitution but believes that only parts of it apply. He, like many liberals, believe that the Constitution does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is infringement and violates the Second Amendment, so I wonder if Al will have his Constitution when that debate ensues.

I also wonder if Al could find that passage in the Constitution that allows abortion (Franken is strongly pro-abortion). Perhaps he could find the part that allows the government to take money from people and give it to other people (he is a proponent of heavily taxing the wealthy to pay for government largess). Like John, I would like to know what part allows government to own car companies and I am particularly interested in where the Constitution first defines the right to free health care and then where it says that the government has the right to force other people to pay for it. I would also be interested in the part that gives government the authority to force people to buy it.

I would like Franken to reconcile his positions that run contrary to the Constitution since he has waved his copy and decided that it should be followed (even if he does not understand when things are being legally followed).

Anyone who has Franken’s ear, please ask him how he can put on such a charade when his positions run contrary to the Constitution.

I would be interested in how he answers the questions though I have a feeling he would rationalize his unconstitutional positions.

Totally unrelated link to The Other McCain

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]

Tags: al franken, constitution, fourth amendment, gun control, Second Amendment

Maryland Will Violate Rights to Get DNA

Jan 30, 2008 Political

The Governor of Maryland is proposing that the state allow DNA to be collected from people who have been arrested for a crime but have not yet been convicted. As it stands now, a person must first be convicted before DNA may be collected and this is how it should remain. Scott D. Shellenberger, the state’s attorney for Baltimore County, has written a piece in the Baltimore Sun indicating that the Governor’s proposal should be passed. He states that this legislation could prevent crime and he cites a case where a man raped a woman and then raped a young girl. It turns out this guy had been arrested but not convicted in the past so there was no DNA on file. Shellenberger contends that if we had collected his DNA the first time he would have been identified after the first rape and the young girl would not have been the victim. This is obviously true but it does not negate the fact that collecting the DNA of people who have not been convicted of a crime violates their Constitutional rights. I submit that state’s attorneys failing to do their jobs are more dangerous than not collecting DNA and I will address that later.

People have an expectation of privacy and the Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches. Taking DNA from a person who is presumed innocent until proven guilty is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In fact, Minnesota’s Court of Appeals held that taking DNA from juveniles and adults who have had a probable cause determination on a charged offense but who have not been convicted violates state and federal constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.[1] It is also important to note that nothing would stop the state and its law enforcement agencies from using DNA for DNA dragnets or from deeper analysis to determine what maladies might affect people. Mr. Shellenberger contends that they don’t need to look at all parts of the DNA, just the parts used to identify. Just because they don’t need to does not mean they will not. The Governor will eventually try to force universal health care on us. What would stop the state from passing a law allowing them to use the DNA to determine eligibility or fee schedules or to see if a person would be a liability in a job? Once they have it, they can pass laws to abuse it in any manner they wish.

It is terrible that the young girl was raped. I am willing to bet that the offender had more than a few brushes with the law and was probably incarcerated at one time. It seems that they could have collected what they needed at that time but let’s assume this guy had never been convicted. Should the state be allowed to conduct a search for DNA without probable cause from a person who is presumed innocent? They cannot be collecting the DNA to connect him with the current crime because they have already arrested him which means sufficient evidence existed for the arrest. Therefore, they are trying to collect (and search as determined by our courts) for evidence linking the suspect to other crimes (or for that use in the future) though no probable cause exists for the collection. Attorney Shellenberger is advocating violating the Fourth Amendment in order to catch criminals. It is a shame that the young girl was raped and that others are victims of crime but violating the rights of people to catch them makes the people in our legal system no better than the criminals.

Now, I contend that state’s attorneys are more of a danger than the failure to collect DNA. It is the people who run our legal systems who allow criminals to go free instead of putting them in jail. Shellenberger used the case of the young girl but how about the case of Maryland State Trooper Theodore Wolf? He was the state police officer killed by two men who were out on bond awaiting sentencing after being found guilty of assault and weapons charges (in New York). How about Baltimore City police Detective Troy Lamont Chesley who was shot and killed in a robbery attempt by a 21 year old with at least 17 arrests on his record and who was due in court the day after the murder on a past gun charge? If he had been in jail Chesley would be alive. How many arrests does it take for state’s attorneys to get the picture? Of course judges play into this picture so the entire legal system is to blame.

The recidivism rate for violent offenders is well over 50% and yet state’s attorney’s and judges let these people out of jail all the time. If we kept them in jail we could reduce violent crime by at least 50%. While Mr. Shellenberger is advocating violating our rights perhaps he can tell us why it is that child sex offenders (who have a near 100% recidivism rate) are continually released so that they can sexually abuse and murder young children. One thing is likely in all the cases I cite, the people had already been convicted so their DNA was probably on file and yet it did not prevent them from committing other crimes. What allowed them to do so was a legal system that let them out of jail and state’s attorneys that accept plea deals which put violent people back on the street.

Collecting DNA from people who have not been convicted of a crime is a violation of their rights just as it would be to start collecting DNA from newborns to establish a database for the future. As Americans we have a certain expectation of privacy and we expect that our rights will not be violated. It is unfortunate that the very same state’s attorneys and judges who let people go free when their rights are violated would violate the rights of people presumed innocent in order to do their jobs.

Mr. Shellenberger, the Governor is wrong on this issue and you are wrong to support it. Violating a person’s rights is never appropriate.

If you want to prevent crime how about doing your job?

[1]American Constitution Society

Tags: dna, fourth amendment, legal abuses, rights