As we take our next steps down the twisted and abused pathway of our Bill of Rights the next two check points we encounter are the overlooked Third and oft cited but ignored Fourth Amendments.
The reason I call the Third Amendment overlooked is simply because 90 percent (according to the latest Fitzwater/BS polls) of the people in America couldn’t tell you what it is. In fact, I bet most of you didn’t know what it was unless you just went and checked. And really, why should you know what it is? It is after all one Amendment that really has outlived its intended use, hasn’t it? Of course, the argument can be made that we may soon need the protections of the Third more than ever; even if our Government does have a history of ignoring it. Therefore, we need to see how we can make it fit with life in the 21st century. Lucky for us, our government has provided more than enough fresh meat for the Third by prison raping the Fourth in the name of public safety. Don’t shrink away now, it is our fault after all.
Although many people I know will vehemently disagree with me, these two Amendments, more than others, have been the national victims of 9-11. I don’t use this phrase lightly and it is not intended to diminish any of the personal losses suffered by families of the physical victims of the 9-11 attacks. Rather, I make this statement because 9-11, more than any other event since Pearl Harbor, has created a culture of public safety over personal freedoms. That my friend is Un-American and Mr. Jefferson would tell you that if he was here.
Amendment III, U. S. Constitution
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.
This Amendment was added because of the habit of the British to force colonists to take in, and provide for, soldiers assigned to garrisons within the colonies. There was no compensation for this and refusal could bring punishment from the governor of the colony, acting on mandate from the king. This is a practice that was not seen again until the Civil War when soldiers from both sides, but mostly Northern Soldiers, would occupy and loot homes in enemy territory for any provisions they needed. This practice was encouraged and sometimes ordered as both a way to restock an always hungry Army, and also as a psychological weapon against the enemy. Post-war, the idea of compensation for those who were victims of sacking fell somewhat short.
Today, we don’t have to worry about the Army needing to set up an outpost in our living room, but only because they have really great mobile command posts that can pull up and park right at the end of your driveway. No, you need to worry more about federal and local law enforcement laying siege to your home in the name of public safety. Of course when it comes right down to it, the Amendment as written with the phrase “without the consent of the owner,” doesn’t say anything about how that consent is obtained. Given the recent elevation of the options the president has in dealing with U.S. citizens, perceived consent could easily be obtained. Add in, “nor in a time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law,” and there are really no restrictions at all (War on Terror and all).
Of course you might not be asked to quarter live military or law enforcement personnel, but rather with our current technologies, it is more likely that they will want to place surveillance equipment on, in, or about your property, you know, to help them “keep an eye on the community.” This is the 21st century equivalent of quartering a soldier since the virtual government agent will be there 24/7; the next evolutionary step in the, community watch program, right?
And that’s where the line between the Third and the Fourth blurs. Many see the Third as a protection Amendment just at the Fourth is, but the Fourth gets a little more specific on what it was intended to protect. But alas, it has been whittled down considerably, in the name of public safety.
Amendment IV, U. S. Constitution
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.
Let’s look at what being secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects means.
Being secure in your person means that you are the one who decides who sees your physical person or your body. This part of the Fourth is violated thousands of times each day by the Transportation Safety Authority (TSA) by having you empty your pockets, open your bags, remove your shoes, and now, step into a scanner that shows much more than any level of modesty should permit. This is done in a manner that makes no sense. We have all heard the stories of grandmothers and children in wheelchairs being searched and anyone with half a cup of common sense has to ask why? It wasn’t, after all, baby toting grannies that facilitated the attacks of 9-11. But to only check persons of Middle Eastern ethnicity is considered profiling. So? If a police officer receives a report to be on the lookout for a short, bald, middle-aged, white guy who just threw a brick through the town hall window, they are not going to stop young Mexican males or Asian women for questioning. Why is this, such a hard concept to transfer to airport security? No, it’s not oversimplifying the problem; it’s a common sense approach to address a problem.
Being secure in your person also means the right not to submit to urine and blood test to see if a person drinks alcohol or uses legal or illegal drugs, to obtain employment. Testing is also required or soon will be, to receive pain medications through public health departments and the VA, and several state governments are pushing to test people applying for unemployment compensation and other services.
Look, I know it’s the Libertarian in me, but what a person puts into his or her body, be it food, alcohol, drugs, fruit juice, MSG, or whatever is that person’s right. If they are on the job and you suspect they are drunk or high and can substantiate the claim, then testing makes sense, as well, if they get hurt or are habitually late, test them. I could go on, but you get the idea.
Another place the Fourth is ignored is being secure in ones papers and effects. And it is done with both public and high court support with the traffic stop. Some have heard me talk on this before and know that I am simply baffled by how it is somehow legal to without a warrant or probable cause, as is required in the Fourth, simply stop individuals that are driving down the highway and order them to surrender their papers and effects for inspection. Here public safety raises its ugly head again. The cry in support of this legal violation of the Fourth is the anti-drunk driving effort. They must protect us from drunk drivers. Well, how about we just have additional police on duty during times of high drunk driving probability (weekends and holidays) and stop more people near the bars. How far do most drunk drivers get before even encountering a stop?
The next evolutionary step is for law enforcement, in the name of public safety, to begin to check the papers (IDs) and effects of pedestrians walking, or people accessing public transportation. It’s a blending of the security culture being developed by the TSA, and the traffic stop. We accept both without complaint now, how hard do you think it would be to get enough elected officials to put the legislation forward for train/subway platform, bus stop and sidewalk stops, then would come the workplace checks until finally they knock on your front door and check. I can hear what some of you are thinking, but people in countries where these things have happened didn’t believe it could happen either. Might I suggest you read about Europe in the 1930s and 40s, or maybe the history of the Russian people.
The government is placing video cameras everywhere, local law enforcement units are employing unmanned drones, federal law enforcement officials can listen in on phone calls “they” decide are worthy, and just this week it was announced that the federal government is looking into ways to monitor “questionable people” through internet access points. This is not science fiction or conspiracy theory stuff; this is real world, happening today stuff. All thanks to the hysterical response to 9-11 called the PATRIOT Act and its subsequent strengthening.
You know, I really wish that I could see a future where our rights will be returned to us but I don’t really believe that it will happen. I see the freedoms we still have being ravaged even more over the years to come because of the fear the government has of its own citizenry. Is there an answer? Yes, but Revolution takes much more than what we see happening so far. Many of us are angry about the way we are being treated, but most either ignore it or are in a group that is not really touched by the woes of the common folks. No, Revolution may come for our descendants; we are here to watch the decline. In the name of public safety.
