NationStates Jolt Archive

The ACLU defends the first. The NRA defends the second. Is there a group that defends the fourth?

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 ACLU defends the first. The NRA defends the second. Is there a group that defends the fourth?

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.

This is normally defended by lawyers working pro-bono (aka free of charge) as it goes well on their record in terms of service to the community.

Its all about whether there is a good case to justify the stance, but alot of the time, believe me, if they've ramsacked your house, and found something undesirable, I doubt anyone would want to touch the case with a 40 foot pole, regardless of what possible legal rights you may have had.

Well, that's not necessarily true, in fact there are many cases in American legal history in which a lawyer has defended a person who was almost certainly guilty based on the evidence provided, yet the evidence was obtained by questionable methods. Many of these lawyers have also overturned the courts' previous rulings.

People are often surprised at how highly many Americans still regard the civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

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.

Who defends that? I think the judicial branch of the government does.

well the ACLU sometimes and a variety of other groups. It is a pretty expansive right (not just your house but your person and by extension all sorts of other things) are protected by the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) is very big on protecting your 4th amendment right not to have your e-mail ransacked by the authorities without a warrent (despite the fact that it technically is neither on your person nor in your home). I understand there are a variety of organizations dedicated to both prohibiting and preserving your 4th amendment right to have an abortion (yep, your right to an abortion is part of the 4th, bet you didn't know that). But mostly you're looking at the ACLU.

The ACLU defends every one of the first ten amendments but the Second.

Considering the Patriot Act renders the 4th amendment null if they wanted then they're not doing a good job of defending it. And would this be under the right to be left alone for death? Then they broke it with the Terri thing also.

Hate this government so ****ing much...

I don't hate our government, it just needs to reach a new phase. Personally I blame the "right wing conservative" areas of government for this, but moreso the side that doesn't believe that what is held in the constitution is sacred, which is pretty ironic - they prefer judges, from what I've found, who are more strict constructionists than liberal interpreters of the constitution. With ideologies, which most of the "right" follow, they are almost always flawed. I've never found one that works, there is always something demented about it.

But don't worry. All governments will likely change again sometime in the future. Just look at history. Seriously.

I think the 4th amendment is generally supported by the judicial branch because it's one the least disputed amendments. Really, who's going to stand up and say "I believe the government should be able to bust into your house and grab anything that looks suspicious!" When so many cases can be thrown out because of unlawfully seized property, I don't think many people are worried about their 4th amendment right's being violated.

::snip::

But don't worry. All governments will likely change again sometime in the future. Just look at history. Seriously.

Haha no shit have you ever considered the loss of civil rights is the change you are talking about? Are you just going to wait and see what happens? I think most of the people who sat around waiting for the upturn in past "changes" were the first to find out how much change had actually taken place with a knock at their door in the middle of the night.

As Soheran said, the ACLU covers the whole dang Bill of Rights except the Second Amendment, and I assume the main reason they decided not to go there is that it wasn't an issue in the good ol' days, and today organisations like the NRA are already doing a good job of high-profile second amendment cases. They vocally lobby against stuff like Guantanamo Bay because it's a violation of the right to trial by jury and right not to incriminate oneself, they frequently represent defendants in search and seizure cases, and I'm sure if anyone in America could remember what was in the rest of hte Bill of Rights, the ACLU would be taking cases on those issues too :)

Only reason people always think of the ACLU as just being a First Amendment defender is because it's their First Amendment cases that garner the most publicity. After all, representing the Klan to try and overturn a law banning the wearing of masks at public demonstrations or suing a school for leading public prayers at school football games generally gets a bit more press than representing some guy who believes the cops didn't have the right to search his car.

Really, who's going to stand up and say "I believe the government should be able to bust into your house and grab anything that looks suspicious!" .
Should the Gov. be able to bust into phone conversations and record anything they wish?

The ACLU defends the first. The NRA defends the second. Is there a group that defends the fourth?

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.
I think ACLU covers that one as well.

I think the 4th amendment is generally supported by the judicial branch because it's one the least disputed amendments. Really, who's going to stand up and say "I believe the government should be able to bust into your house and grab anything that looks suspicious!"

You haven't been on this forum long enough. Give it a couple of weeks, and sure enough, you'll see someone arguing exactly that. Usually they're more subtle about it, and couch it in terms of "If you're doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide." That's not the point - the government would be wasting their time sorting through my garbage, and they'd be incredibly bored listening to my phone conversations, but that doesn't mean I'm OK with them doing it anyway.

There are plenty of people who are willing to support this kind of soft fascism, which is why we have to be so vigilant against it. Just look at how many people support the Patriot Act and its blatant violations of the 4th Amendment.

:rolleyes:

The ACLU defends the first. The NRA defends the second. Is there a group that defends the fourth?

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 ACLU also defends other parts of the Bill of Rights, particularly including the 4th Amendment. Check out the website (http://www.aclu.org/). See all the issues on the side other than free speech and religion?

The only one the ACLU does not actively litigate is the 2nd. And that is because they have decided to remain neutral on that issue.

This is normally defended by lawyers working pro-bono (aka free of charge) as it goes well on their record in terms of service to the community.

Its all about whether there is a good case to justify the stance, but alot of the time, believe me, if they've ramsacked your house, and found something undesirable, I doubt anyone would want to touch the case with a 40 foot pole, regardless of what possible legal rights you may have had.

Um. Almost every prosecution in which the legality of a search is challenged the police found something incriminating -- otherwise it wouldn't be an issue. The defendant seeks to have the incriminating evidence thrown out because the search was illegal. This happens every day in our (and your) courtrooms.

Should the Gov. be able to bust into phone conversations and record anything they wish?

If it falls under the absurdly gigantic tent of "in defence of terrorism", then why not? :rolleyes: /sarcasm

Why in hell did our elected reps re-up an Act that grants the power to circumvent the Constitution?

Damn Republicans!