The Fourth Amendment : Search & Seizure

Source :

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/full-body-x-ray-scanners-driving-down-street-



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.'

Analysis of the Connection:

In the article, " Full-Body X-Ray Scanners Driving Down A Street Near You?," The author discusses the controversy in officials being able to scan your body without you even being aware. It is said to be intrusive and violates the fourth amendment law. It was first sold to the U.S military and then to law enforcement for the purposes of searching nearby vehicles. The use of this technology constitutes a search, and under the Fourth Amendment, a search can only be carried out with a warrant. There are exceptions to that, but none of them would apply if this technology is being used on public streets.

I believe the full body scanners should be used for what they were originally for: the military and to search vehicles. Bringing the scanners onto the streets would be a violation of privacy and a waste of money. There is always someone misusing the technology for negative purposes. It would be less controversial if the American Science & Engineering would create a skeletal scanner instead of just subtracting the clothes.

The Second Amendment : The Right to Bear Arms

Source: Current Events & Politics: Right to Bear Arms

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/12142/?ck=1



Constitutional Connection:
 

Amendment 2: "Because a Militia is important to the protection of the states, people have the right to keep and bear arms."

 

Analysis of the Connection:

 

Amendment 2 protects an individuals right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court determined that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same extent that it limits federal authority. The Supreme Court also stated that its ruling was not to be taken as an indication that all firearm restrictions are unconstitutional.

 
The evidence/ connection I found is a video clip from the website recorded above. It gives insight onto how some citizens of New Orleans rights were violated. After Hurricane Katrina storm, the government took special precautions to "protect" the residents of New Orleans and ordered the states police officers to confiscate all weapons. Unfortunately, the police officers went too far defeated the purpose of the task. The first mistake was not having warrants to enter the residents home but entering regardless. The other mistake was using violence in order to get the weapons. Throughout the video, we heard the view points of those residents that were intruded upon.

I feel like the Police officers definitely overstepped their boundaries this time, even if they were given special orders. The citizens had a documented right to own those weapons. Not only did the officers violate those citizen's second amendment rights, but they also violated the fifth amendment right. Those officers were on private land and they forced their way into those homes without a warrant. In the video, it also explains an incident where a elderly woman was physically assaulted! Some special precautions should be taken to handle this. Against the officers and the person giving the commands! I would sue.

The First Amendment : Freedom of Assembly

Source: "Hispanic Day Laborers Sue Freehold, Claiming Right to Gather to Seek Work"

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/31/nyregion/hispanic-day-laborers-sue-freehold-claiming-right-to-gather-to-seek-work.html?scp=3&sq=Hispanic%20Day%20Laborers&st=cse

Constitution Connection:

Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Analysis of the Connection:

The history of where "The Freedom of Assembly" derived from is not as widely documented (in detail) as "The Freedom of Speech." However, there are many documentations of cases surrounding the topic.

In 1876, the right of assembly was first tested by the Supreme Court. It was a case of the United States vs. Cruikshank. The defendant was accused of violating the Enforcement Act of 1870, which forbid any act to "intimidate any other person from freely exercising and enjoying any right or privilege granted or secured by the Constitution of the United Sates."

The defendant's charges were ultimately realised when the court declared, "The right of the people to peaceably assemble..."

In the article, "Hispanic Day Laborers Sue Freehold, Claiming Right to Gather to Seek Work," a group of Hispanic Laborers decided to come together, take charge and sue the Federal District Court in Freehold, New Jersey. The laborers felt as though the Court was restraining their First Amendment rights by preventing them from gathering in a vacant lot to solicit work. The working opportunities presented by the local church was also quickly shut down by Freehold officials because they didn't want an "open-air job market" moved into the church.
Read more at Suite101: Understanding Freedom of Assembly: A Look at the First Amendment Right to Gather Freely http://www.suite101.com/content/understanding-freedom-of-assembly-a66325#ixzz0xTkGCyMP

I respect the Hispanic day laborers for standing up for themselves and coming together. I strongly believe that the Freehold officials definitely violated the citizens First Amendment rights by preventing them from gathering at a vacant parking lot. The constitution clearly states "right of the people peaceably to assemble," and they union was for a positive cause. The Federal District Court definitely should be sued.

The First Amendment : Freedom of Speech

Source: "Appeals Court: Stolen Valor Act Unconstitutional"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/18/appeals-court-stolen-valor-act-unconstitutional/

Constitutional Connection:

Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Analysis of the Connection:

The history of the first amendment: freedom of speech, traces back long before it was codified by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. A desire for freedom of speech can be connected all the way back to Colonial America where the first settlers longed for the right to freely speak about their religious beliefs.

The constitutional basis, however, can be traced specifically to the trail of John Zenger, a German newspaper publisher, in the year 1735. Zenger publicly published criticisms of the Governor of New York, William Cosby. After attempted retaliations from Cosby, Zenger was finally arrested on July 29, 1735 but was acquitted of the charges and free speech was established.

In the article, "Appeals Court: Stolen Valor Act Unconstitutional," an appeals court in Pasadena, California made yet another ruling on a military/marine warrior impostor. Xavior Alvarez, a water district board member, stated at a public meeting in 2007 that he was a retired marine officer who'd received a Metal of Honor. Alvarez was indited in 2007 and pleaded guilty on the basis that he would be allowed to appeal on First Amendment grounds.

Personally, I strongly agree with the court for inditing Alvarez. He was wrong in what he did. Unfortunately, we have some insensitive, careless people in our country that search for that "gray area" and take things too far. There is no use in lying about your profession publicly when someone can easily find our the truth. Yes, people have the right to say what they wants to say but if it violate some one ELSE'S right or if you are benefiting from something by lying, then you must suffer the consequences.