Dearest America:
Please send the remnants of your Fourth Amendment rights to the United States Supreme Court, ATTN. Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. Do not worry about piecing them back together, as they will ultimately be thrown away.
If you think that your rights are in perfect working order, do not bother to send them in – instead, contact your nearest medical professional and schedule a CAT scan at the earliest possible convenience. This is for your own safety.
In case you missed the reasoning behind all this amid the hubbub of the Inaugural ceremonies, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in Herring v. U.S., 07-513, to limit the exclusionary rule: meaning, if the police make an honest mistake, illegal searches and seizures magically become legal and the menagerie of protections from the government promised by the Constitution suddenly disappear. Voila!
The story, in short, is that Bennie Dean Herring was pulled over by a sheriff in Coffee County, Alabama, when the sheriff checked out his record. A felony arrest warrant had been put out for him, but warrant had been revoked – at least in legal terms. The warrant was never taken off the police database, and therefore Herring was arrested. In a subsequent search of the vehicle, the sheriff found methamphetamines and an unloaded pistol. Herring was then charged with weapons possession while in possession of illegal drugs, indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to 27 months in a federal prison.
By the exclusionary rule, Herring argued through appeal that the drugs and pistol were obtained by illegal search, and therefore the sheriff could not build a case and the charges would have to be dropped. The case made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States, where Chief Justice John Roberts led a majority opinion stating that since the cops weren’t trying to be negligent, the search was legal and the conviction was upheld.
So, lets get back to why your rights are, according to the United States Supreme Court, meaningless. Our government was split into three separate branches for a good reason: to protect the rights of the citizen. Congress was set up to legislate and create the laws, the Executive Branch to uphold and defend the laws, and the Supreme Court to apply and judge the laws by their constitutionality – at least since Marbury v. Madison. Under these conditions, our government could operate with efficiency and justice; without them the rights of the individual are subject to perversion and oppression. Just as our founding fathers worried about the power of any branch growing too large, so must we – and this is a perfect reason why.
How can the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution by trampling the rights that it promises? How can citizens be protected from their government when a ruling majority of conservatives with life terms legislate from the bench and destroy our Fourth Amendment rights? Herring v. U.S. shows us that our government is prepared to do what it takes to protect its own interests, disregarding the best interests of its citizens and future generations.
Bennie Dean Herring is a hero in my book – albeit a drug-using, arms-wielding one. Disregarding his transgressions, the police made an illegal search, and he stood up against the tyranny of the status quo – an action that our founding fathers would be glad to see. It’s too bad that we cannot say the same for the actions of the Supreme Court.
Keep on truckin’,
Sean J. Palmer
We The People Politics
About Sean J. Palmer
Most Recent Comments