“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.”

The Fourth Amendment acts as an addition to the core values of the Third Amendment, especially because it continues the discussion on privacy and how citizens must have the right to maintain control over their own lives without government intervention. The Fourth Amendment speaks more to the violation of privacy without just cause or evidence. Its main purpose is to protect citizens from the immense power that the government holds and make sure that the system does not violate the rules it has put in place itself. But then certain questions are posed that challenge this amendment such as, what if a violation of privacy leads to the improvement of or the saving of someone’s life, even the protection of not only one citizen, but many? Can a breech in privacy be ever justified?

A landmark Supreme Court case that debated the core issues of the Fourth Amendment was Muehler vs. Mena from 2005. Mena, the respondent in the case said her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated when police searched her house, with a warrant, and had handcuffed her and others during the search. Mena claimed that the officers had violated her right to be free, not handcuffed, during an unreasonable seizure. The officers also questioned Mena and others about their immigration status and Mena stated that violated her rights as well. Originally, lower courts had ruled in favor of Mena, but a different verdict was reached at the Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision the court ruled against Mena and overturned previous court decisions, which had said Mena’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. The Supreme Court said that if officers have a search warrant they have the right to arrest and detain suspects, or people of interest surrounding the warrant in order to reduce threats against the officers. They held that the warrant allowed for just seizure of suspects and that the questioning of their immigration status was also valid and a part of the investigation.

So, contrary to other posts, the case presented here shows how the Supreme Court overturned a decision in order to stay in line with the Bill of Rights and more specifically the Fourth Amendment. Here, I do believe that the court was indeed protecting our rights, not hindering them. You cannot express your rights in such a way that they then begin to infringe upon the rights and safety of others—i.e. the cops have a right to detain suspects during a warranted search in order to protect themselves and those involved. The justice system has a duty to the American People to protect the rights of all its citizens, and regardless of whether you personally believe that it achieves that or not, there will always be a gray zone, where all those involved will not be completely happy with how the situation turns out, but under the law it is fair.

Websites:

http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0

https://books.google.com/books?id=-_QVsS_MKGoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=fourth+amendment&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwic2vqh97LPAhVCPCYKHQ7CCA8Q6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=fourth%20amendment&f=false

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1423

Hall & Oates song–“Private Eyes”

Chorus:

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

The basis for the creation of the Third Amendment is clearly outdated, as it revolves around the prevention of British soldiers from staying in the homes of citizens. And this blog post may seem a little far-fetched, but I’ll try to bring relevance to this amendment in modern times. But the core values of its creation have held fast for decades: that the government and its agents cannot impede upon the private property and privacy of its citizens. Here comes into play the hot topic of privacy and where private ownership begins and ends; what is truly yours and what belongs to the public?

Although it may seem to be a stretch, there was a landmark Supreme Court case that debated the issues held within the Third Amendment. The case, Griswold vs. Connecticut, debated multiple amendments, including the third. Griswold the defendant in the case, was accused of violating a law that had criminalized the dissemination of information about contraception. Specifically, Griswold and her group were providing counseling to married couples in the privacy of their own clinic. Now, where this ties into the Third Amendment is that these counseling sessions were held in a private clinic, so by law Griswold would be allowed to give advice to these families. These sessions were not held in public and thus would be considered a private matter and protected from government intervention. Specifically, the question posed by this case was whether private counseling meetings and the status of marriage warranted the ability to be free from certain government laws. Thus in a 7-2 vote in favor of Griswold, the Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights creates certain zones that establish the right to privacy.

So, although on the surface the Third Amendment seems quite outdated, its values themselves are timeless. The debate between individual privacy and the rule of the government and law is a debate that is still held today and one that framed one of the questions on our application to PSU. Our democratic system is always in a constant swing between where individual rights begin and where the government can intervene and step in. As the world becomes ever more interconnected, the lack of privacy is growing as we like, favor, and post. But yet many people ask for more privacy, when they themselves are putting their lives out into the world. Now, I am not criticizing these choices, for I myself have many mediums of social media, but if you are willing to put yourself out there, you must also be ready to sacrifice some level of privacy.

There is also the issue of further government intervention and surveillance, such as the recent debate of the increase in the power of the NSA and whether or not they should have such a high level of access to the information of the American public. But, their defense would be privacy comes at the cost of safety, but does it? Here is where my response to our application question comes into play. On a personal level, if it came down to someone’s privacy or their safety, I would choose their safety. But that does not mean I should know everything about them. So, where do you draw the line between privacy, safety, and public knowledge.

I find myself that through writing these blog posts I come to the same conclusion every time—the law and the role of the individual and the role of the government is so circumstantial and specific to every situation.

websites:

https://www.nsa.gov

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

You have the right to protect yourself, or do you? The Second Amendment has always been a source of controversy; there has always been a divide on whether people should be able to obtain and carry weapons or whether they should not have them at all. The creation of the Second Amendment took place during a different time under different cultural standards, but does that make it truly out of date? Should we cast aside an amendment that some find too “old fashioned,” “unnecessary,” or “too sensitive,” or should we keep it, or change its form?

There are two landmark Supreme Court Cases that discuss the Second Amendment in its purest form—one from 1939, “United States vs. Miller,” and more recently from 2008 “District of Columbia vs. Heller.”

In 1939 Jack Miller and Frank Layton were brought before the Supreme Court because they were accused in Arkansas of violating the National Firearms Act when they transported a double barrel 12-gauge shotgun across state lines. Miller and Layton said this accusation violated their Second Amendment rights, and within the state of Arkansas the district court agreed and dismissed their case. However, their case was taken to the Supreme Court, where a different verdict was found. In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court reversed the Miller/Layton Verdict and said that no, the Second Amendment does not protect the right to bear arms, if the weapon is unregistered. The court held true that Congress can and will require the registration of a sawed—off shotgun if it were to be carried across state lines. The court also reasoned that this modified weapon was not reasonable nor efficient in having a local militia. So, in the end it was not that the court seemed against the right to bear arms, but rather to a modification of the weapon and the failure to register it.

Now in a more recent case, The District of Columbia vs. Heller from 2008, the Second Amendment was also debated in relation to unregistered weapons. The basis of the law in the DOC was that it was illegal to carry an unregistered weapon and that all registered weapons had to be unloaded or disassembled at all times. Heller filed for a one year permit to carry, but was denied, so he sued and claimed that this law violated his Second Amendment rights to have a functional weapon within his home. With some dissenting opinions found in lower courts, Keller’s case traveled down the road to the Supreme Court, where in a 5-4 decision the court found that the DOC law was indeed in violation of the Second Amendment for it restricted the capability to properly defend oneself if needed. They also debated the modern meaning of “militia” and how it should apply to all citizens, for if it does not then the Second Amendment would be creating a force it was meant to inhibit. In the dissent for the group it was stated that the amendment only spoke to the creation of a militia and did not apply on a personal level. Others believed that the DOC would be able to make the best decision for its people and that the Supreme Court should let the DOC decide for itself what is best for its citizens.

So in regards to the Second Amendment there seems to be more debate on how to regulate and control the flow of weapons, rather than the basic question of: can people own them or not? The issue does not seem to be ownership, but who can obtain said ownership. It is unfortunate that in recent years there has been a spike in the amount of mass gun violence and an increase in more small crime violence as well, but is not the answer to lessening these numbers figuring out a way to prevent certain people from obtaining these weapons? Or is it not that simple? Can there ever be a simple, definite line where the rights of ownership of weapons can begin and end? Again, the law presents itself to be purely based on circumstance, but that circumstance, that ability to vary from situation to situation is where the grey areas come into play. And it is through the grey areas that debate and confusion over where individual freedoms begin and end occurs.

Most recent articles on the second amendment:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2016/09/15/officials-keep-whittling-away-at-second-amendment-rights/#6a09f02a4bb0

http://www.attn.com/stories/11401/veteran-jason-kander-assembles-gun-with-blindfold-in-ad

Websites:

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/

https://home.nra.org

“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.”

Land of the free, home of the brave—the concluding statement of our National Anthem is also the core of our First Amendment. Summarized, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, press, religion, expression, petition, assembly, etc. But that is not to say it does not include its limitations. However, where can you draw the line in the sand and say this is where freedom stops, when you are guaranteed ultimate freedom to say and do what you please? Why do people say they can tell you no? But aren’t they inherently violating what people have fought for by trying to limit what you wish to say? Simply, there are certain pleasantries that must be followed when expressing ones First Amendment rights, such as recognizing the threat to public safety or respecting the ability of certain organizations, such as schools, to regulate and discipline what its students can or cannot say.

A landmark Supreme Court case that discussed the First Amendment and the issue of freedom of expression, specifically that of free speech was Schenck vs. United States. This case, which took place in 1919 after WWI focused on the discussion of free speech and if the government has the authority to regulate speech under certain circumstances. Charles Schenck the defendant in this case was charged with conspiracy to violate the espionage act by encouraging military insubordination or desertion during WWI. Schenck was protesting the war and was sending pamphlets and the like through the mail to men eligible for the draft. However, Schenck never encouraged violent action, but rather peaceful protest against the war effort. So why would the government feel threatened by peaceful action?

Schenck’s case was taken all the way to The Supreme Court where a unanimous decision sided with the U.S. over Schenck. Their reasoning was that Schenck’s publications presented a “clear and present danger.” They stated that all things uttered in public are subject to their own circumstances and in time of war the government can regulate what is published so as to not lower morale or generate an added threat.

So, can the government or another organization regulate what is said by its citizens during a time of war, or even at all? Are they not then violating the rights they are trying to protect? For me, I see the logic in restricting what is said on certain topics, such as a draft, during war. In a time of such great anxiety and fear, why add more stress? But how can you or anyone else decide where freedoms stop and start? You can’t. It’s never a clear distinction and I think that is what is most frustrating about law—everything is circumstantial.

Source for Court Case info:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47

John Mayer “Say what you need to say”