Thinking Out Loud - About the 4th Amendment

As for the people who cite the 4th Amendment, they do not understand the 4th Amendment nor the Constitution. Just for edification purposes, here is the Amendment. "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."

Breaking down the Amendment will deflect any those who would use it to defend their point against the new Arizona law (and the federal Law which has been in place since the 40's).

"The right of the people . . . " By "people" the Constitution is speaking of American citizens. An illegal immigrant is NOT an American citizen. But by courtesy, we often extend protections to those "visiting" our country. Generally, however, this is extended to those who abide by our laws in the first place. This does not describe an illegal immigrant, or anyone else here illegally (i.e. drug cartel criminals crossing back and forth over the border).

". . . to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects . . . " Simple, straight forward and no contentions here.

". . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . ." An unreasonable search or seizure is one where there is no probable cause, no illegal activity apparent and no reason for law enforcement officials to believe any law is being broken. This one is often pointed to as one of the ways Arizona's new law would be abused. They say racial profiling and illegal stops would become routine. However, both the 4th Amendment AND the new Arizona law make this not possible.

". . . and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . ." And here is why the former statements are supported. Probable. Cause. There has to be probable cause. Both the 4th Amendment and the new Arizona law agree on this. In order for the law to be used is after another violation of the law occurs.

". . . supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." There are laws and rules of conduct in place, be it the federal government or state government, that specifies what constitutes "Oath" and "affirmation." In other words, if there is a suspected meth lab, the law enforcement officials must get enough evidence to convince a judge to get a search warrant. But it also means that if a law enforcement sees someone weaving all over the road (reasonable cause), smells alcohol when speaking with the driver (affirmation), then they can look in the car to see if there is an open container. If he sees blood on the floor and on the trunk, he also has the legal right to search the trunk. This is nothing new in law enforcement. It has been argued and fought over already and found Constitutional time and time again. Therefore, if an officer sees someone loitering, they can question them. If there is reasonable cause to believe they are not citizens, they can ask for identification.

Now here is the big key. If they have no identification saying they are US citizens, then the officer can ask for any immigration documents. If they have none of these, then the officers are allowed, by this law, a state law, to take them into custody to determine their resident or non-resident status, by contacting the Immigration Services.

There is nothing illegal or un-Constitutional about this law. And it is an attempt by the state to protect its citizens, which they federal government, under the President's own admission, have "abdicated their responsibilities" for a long time. Until such time as we wish to go back to the REAL cause of the Civil War (which was the federal government overstepping its bounds and stepping into state's rights), the federal government has no right to interfere with state law that does not interfere with federal law (which this one not only doesn't violate federal law but compliments a law the feds are failing to enforce).

Obama and his Democrats should stop worrying about getting the Latino vote, stop pandering to illegal immigrants. They should start protecting the citizens of this country and not those who are NOT citizens. They should do their job, let the states do their jobs. They should worry more about what the citizens of this country are going through with threats of violence from criminals entering our country illegally and stop worrying about what other world leaders like the Mexican President have to say.

You can agree with me or disagree with me, makes no matter. As long I get you to stop listening to other people and start looking at the reality of the world. Put yourself n the shoes of the murdered rancher's family and friends, in the shoes of those who fear murder, torture and rape from the hands of illegal criminals and feel more compassion for them than those who would break our laws. But hey, this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

Take care, have a great day, and thank a law enforcement officer for protecting you. And as Will Rogers implied, its time to get smart, America!

Charles