Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘warrant’

MisleadingFirst, by the attacks being called acts of “terrorism” as opposed to mass murder, despite no evidence at the time that there was a political motive.

Second, that the FBI had any reason or authority to be the primary investigator of the bombings in the absence of evidence of federal crimes involving foreign perpetrators or inter-state activities.

Third, that the military has any authority to conduct police actions on civilians. This was expressly prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act (1878), and military police action against civilians is contrary to a free society.

Fourth, that a no-fly zone over Boston was justified. In rules of warfare, a no-fly zone is an act of war, as this former Washington Post military correspondent attests, and a de-facto declaration of war was made against the civilian population of Boston.

Fifth, that police have any authority to conduct arbitrary door-to-door searches without a warrant. Such action is expressly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The only exigent circumstance to conduct a warrantless search of a home is if there is a clear and present danger to the physical safety or life of others by someone in the house, and if obtaining a warrant would unduly put the life of others at risk, and such exceptions are only justified on the basis that government is instituted to protect life, liberty and property.

Read Full Post »

The Cornell Law School Library

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Treasury Secretary and Father of Reaganomics, makes a point of highlighting the silence of law schools and bar associations in the face of repeated bi-partisan unconstitutional assaults on the liberties of Americans since 9/11.

Cornell University Law School, one of the most prestigious U.S. law schools, states in the Fourth Amendment section of their Law Dictionary:

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress and the President enacted legislation to strengthen the intelligence gathering community’s ability to combat domestic terrorism.

That reads to me like a joint White House and Congressional press release.

They go on to mention sneak-and-peek warrants:

A sneak-and-peak warrant is a warrant in which law enforcement can delay notifying the property owner about the warrant’s issuance. In an Oregon federal district court case that drew national attention, Judge Ann Aiken struck down the use of sneak-and-peak warrants as unconstitutionally violative of the Fourth Amendment. See 504 F.Supp.2d 1023 (D. Or. 2007).

Note how they don’t take a position on the constitutionality of sneak-and-peek warrants, and simply refer to the judicial decision of one judge, as if it’s a gray issue and their graduates and professors who have served or are serving in government haven’t taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Being a law school they should be well familiar with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Indeed they are, as they start their section by quoting it in full.

Nowhere in their section do they mention roving wiretaps, which are clearly unconstitutional, since the Fourth Amendment requires the warrant to particularly describe “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” while roving wiretaps follow, for example, someone who repeatedly uses new cellphones to evade detection.

To me, silence in the face of these violations is acceptance, especially by those institutions which claim to promote a deeper study and understanding of law.

The Constitution lays out a lawful and legal path for any changes, and that’s through Article V, as has been used 27 times to date.

Read Full Post »