3 ms·

A country's constitution isn't necessarily clear, because a country's constitution must stand the test of time. When the US constitution was written, there were

A country's constitution isn't necessarily clear, because a country's constitution must stand the test of time. When the US constitution was written, there were no phones or telegraphs and there was no Internet. It's actually remarkable that the US constitution is still relevant today. Truth be told, if the US constitution would be written or updated today, then the 4th amendment (or anything like it) wouldn't be there - you know it, they know it. The constitution is their only legal barrier in doing whatever they want to do. Also, it isn't true that "unreasonable" is meaningless. A person subject to search without being a suspect in wrongdoing is unreasonable, unless you say that everybody is a suspect and that's also unreasonable.

ewoodrich 13y ago
I would strongly agree with the parent post that "reasonable" is very context-dependent and vague. In fact, if you look into the contention behind the Constitution and Bill of Rights as well, it would be clear that there would be incentive to introduce "weasel words" or phrases to pacify opposition. The "Elastic Clause" is a classic example, which ostensibly constrains, but through the introduction of the phrase "Necessary and Proper", vastly expands the power of the federal government. There are numerous examples of similar qualifications throughout. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause
rayiner 13y ago
The 4th amendment isn't general, it's fairly specific while simultaneously being wiggly. The 4th amendment could have been written in more absolute language, like the 1st: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." That's general language intended to be broadly encompassing. They could have said "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of privacy." In contrast, the 4th amendment uses specific examples, that weren't broadly-encompassing even back then (third party records existed back then too!), and also uses the wiggle word "reasonable" which invites judicial balancing of reasonable versus unreasonable searches. The 1st amendment doesn't mention political protests specifically, or say that Congress shall make no law "unreasonably abridging" the freedom of speech. You can't just pretend the 4th amendment says whatever you want it to say. It's written using much narrower language than the 1st, and it's use of "reasonable" invites judicial balancing and exception-making in its application.

ewoodrich 13y ago

I would strongly agree with the parent post that "reasonable" is very context-dependent and vague. In fact, if you look into the contention behind the Constitution and Bill of Rights as well, it would be clear that there would be incentive to introduce "weasel words" or phrases to pacify opposition. The "Elastic Clause" is a classic example, which ostensibly constrains, but through the introduction of the phrase "Necessary and Proper", vastly expands the power of the federal government. There are numerous examples of similar qualifications throughout. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause

rayiner 13y ago

The 4th amendment isn't general, it's fairly specific while simultaneously being wiggly. The 4th amendment could have been written in more absolute language, like the 1st: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." That's general language intended to be broadly encompassing. They could have said "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of privacy." In contrast, the 4th amendment uses specific examples, that weren't broadly-encompassing even back then (third party records existed back then too!), and also uses the wiggle word "reasonable" which invites judicial balancing of reasonable versus unreasonable searches. The 1st amendment doesn't mention political protests specifically, or say that Congress shall make no law "unreasonably abridging" the freedom of speech. You can't just pretend the 4th amendment says whatever you want it to say. It's written using much narrower language than the 1st, and it's use of "reasonable" invites judicial balancing and exception-making in its application.