Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure

Source:

DOJ Releases Bush's Post-9/11 Memos. March 2, 2009
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19536_Page2.html

Constitutional Connection:

Amendment 4
"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."

Explanation of Connection:

            In this article, it is discussed how former President Bush's post-9/11 memos seemed to be unconstitutional and overruling on our human rights. One of the opinions Bush discussed in his memo, and the opinion I paid most attention to declared that "American military forces operating on U.S. soil did not have to obey the Constitution’s limits on search and seizure of individuals and their property." This policy remained the "official but unannounced" policy of the U.S. until October of 2008 when the new head of the Office of Legal Council renounced much of the opinion, again without notice to the public.

            This article clearly demonstrates Amendment 4 of the United States Constitution. In no way, shape or form, should the government have the power to invade and "search" the homes of innocent civilians without a warrant to do so. This is not an opinion of my own, it is written in the U.S. constitution. Bush's post-9/11 memo violated this constitutional principle, and the public had no awarence of it. However, in 2008, Steven Bradburry reformed this policy. The Constitution protects citizens' property and other private possessions against unreasonable searches and seizures for a number of specific reasons. One of those is because it would not be right to invade the home of someone who is ultimately innocent because that is their personal space. When the government has no evidence of their wrong doing, their seaches must be based off of judgement, and that is not at all constitutional.

            I am glad this constitutional principle is set in place. I would be furious if an armed policeman rushed into my house, went through my belongings, and destroyed my right to privacy when I had not committed a single crime. I would assume many other angry citizens as well if this Amendment did not exist, and a large mass of angry citizens doesn't equal up to a peaceful, tranquil America.