3 ms·
Legislation doesn't affect the interpretation of the constitution. And in this case, judicial precedent follows evolving (both popular and legal) ideas of what
by mlyle 3y ago
Legislation doesn't affect the interpretation of the constitution.
And in this case, judicial precedent follows evolving (both popular and legal) ideas of what the words in the constitution mean.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
"Persons, houses, papers, and effects" has been interpreted in terms of what things a person had, excluding things that they had given someone else to hold. It was a pretty reasonable interpretation and compromise, until it was the governing case law that covered the cloud.
- goodSteveramos 3y ago> Legislation doesn't affect the interpretation of the constitution. Legislation can limit what Federal agents are allowed to do totally irrespectively of whether those things would separately violate the constitution.
- mlyle 3y agoSure, but we're not really talking about federal agents for the most part. We're talking about local police forces in states sending subpoenas to Ring.
- goodSteveramos 3y agoI cant believe you are making me say this but… s/federal agents/local police/g
- mlyle 3y agoFederal law's ability to enjoin local police activity is limited. And in any case: the law is a blunt instrument. It's (usually) better as a slowly changing representation of conventions and social consensus instead of something that we make sweeping changes in (whether legislatively or judicially).
- goodSteveramos 3y agoWhat limits it?