• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Small Win for the 4A?

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,949
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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."

The supreme court intentionally misinterpreted the fourth amendment just like the did the second amendment. It took 231 years to set the record straight regarding the second amendment. When will the Supremes correct the fourth amendment?

There are three sections to the fourth amendment, all connected with a conjunction, "and." "And" is used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences that are to be taken jointly.

The first phrase says that the people are to be secure against "unreasonable" searches.
The second phrase tells you what is unreasonable. A search is unreasonable without a warrant supported by oath.
The third part makes clear that the warrant cannot be a general warrant. The warrant mus be particular or specific in nature.

So, until the Supremes fixes this fraud we will continue to have our rights violated.

Remember, Supremes have been winding back the commerce clause, but the lower courts refuse to comply with United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

If the fourth amendment's false interpenetration was corrected, Terry v. Ohio would evaporate, as well as all the other cases tied to Terry.
 
Top