4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
<font color="blue"> "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 issure, but upon probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." </font>
9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
<font color="blue"> " The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." </font>
Statements like the following are made when people don't grasp why Congress voted for the "Bill of Rights" on September 25, 1789 and 3/4ths of the States ratified them in 1790-91:
[ QUOTE ]
"...I don't remember the article in the Bill of Rights or Constitution that guaranteed my right to "not feel uncomfortable at anytime in my life."
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, this is an example of the types of argument that are precisely what The 9th Amendment was written, adopted, and ratified to deal with.
According to the 9th Amendment, simply because "certain rights" have been enumerated in the Constitution, does not mean there are not "others retained by the people".
It is a violation of the constitution to construe the enumeration of certain rights in order to "to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people".
The Law Enforcement community as a whole in my lifetime has not provided leadership in maintaining the sanctity of The Bill of Rights. Afterall, The Bill of Rights places limits upon them.
People who believe that the police will protect them from the police state, reject the lessons of history in just the last century.
Thomas Jefferson's comment is still true today, if not more so:
"Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearsome taskmaster."
Finally, this statement was particularly surprising to me:
[ QUOTE ]
Remember these "new" cultural customs are based on <font color="red"> the fact that criminals cannot control themselves from attacking other people</font> ..."
[/ QUOTE ]
How many here accept this as fact? I don't. I think this is some sort of philosophical belief that apparently many espouse, and God bless 'em, that's protected.
But, is this a philosophical belief that common law and The U.S. Constitution are based upon and should jurisprudence be based on?
BC
PS: Don't confuse "sanctity" with "sacredness". The founders couldn't help what sex or color they were, I wouldn't use that against them.
They wrote in provisions for the amending of the Constitution and many of them knew that suffrage should be extended as soon as enough of the people believed in it and would vote to extend equal protection under the law.
It was these rights which were "retained by the people" that were recognized in subsequent amendments.
BC