View Single Post
Old 04-17-2008, 01:16 PM   #48
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
well...I mean there is the 4th amendment to the US Constitution:



So either people can be secure in their persons and houses against unreasonable searches, or not.

And either warrants shall particularly describe what is to be searched and who or what is to be seized, or not.

I mean, the right to be secure in one's home from unlawful intrusion by the government is part of the rights of englishmen which go back to the magna carta. So, I suppose one could set aside 700 years plus of legal tradition in the west because of one instance of alleged child abuse, but that seems rather short-sighted and imprudent, IMO.
I am not a constitutional law expert, but from a glance, the word "unreasonable" is probably where cases have interpreted the Fourth Amendment, and probably where people can disagree on the appropriateness of law enforcement actions. Warrants are narrowly tailored, but law enforcement's ability to act in many situations extends beyond the text of the warrant. Otherwise, in searching a house for a person, they wouldn't be able to touch the drugs sitting on the table in plain view.

And I've seen my fair share of arguments regarding the 2nd amendment to know just because it's in the Constitution doesn't mean people hold it to be inviolable. Human laws change and evolve... HOPEFULLY in an effort of improvement. Human law had slavery and segregation as a-okay for some time and that needed to change, regardless of legal tradition.

Lastly, it's more than just this instance. 1. The excuse is used to shelter all kinds of criminal activity in both homes and vehicles. 2. This particular situation is exactly how CPS works: if they have a reason to show up at your home, they do, and if they see something new that they deem to be an immediate threat to the well-being of the child, that child is removed for the child's protection. It sucks to see children taken from their parents, but that's part of CPS's authority and obligation. Many people are outraged now only because of the magnitude of this one instance coupled with fundamentalist Mormonism.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote