Strengths of the U.S. Constitution

The Fourth Amendment addresses questions of search and exaltation and is worded as follows:

The sort out of the people to be secure in their persons, ho economic consumptions, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, further upon app bent ca procedure, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the perspective to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

These few words take a leak been much argued over the years and lose produced a rangy body of case law and Supreme Court decisions define the nature of the search situation, the need for a warrant in different situations, and the ability to use or not use evidence seized wrongly by officials. Privacy issues intersect with the paper in several different aspects, though there is no specific right of silence enumerated in the Constitution. Cases involving the Fourth Amendment may deal with guards against physical and electronic snooping by the police, and whether privateness in this context can be justified by " pilot cloaked" has been a controversy. This is the sort of case to be considered below--we cope that the Fourth Amendment applies to physical searches in a domicile, but does it excessively protect conversations over the telephone so that government wiretaps shoot a warrant?

The essence of the doctrine of original intent is explained in a speech by Justice Brennan (1985):

The only difference between keep in line originalism and nonoriginalist adjudication is one of attitude toward the text and original understanding. For the moderate originalist, these sources are conclusive when they speak clearly. For the nonoriginalist, they are important but not determinative (Brest, 1980, 229).

It is not the notion that judges may follow up a constitutional provision only to circumstances specifically contemplated by the framers. In so narrow a digit the philosophy is useless. Since we cannot know how the framers would vote on specific cases today, in a very different world from the one they knew, no intentionalist of any sophistication employs the narrow version just exposit (Bork, 1987, 14).

While the originalist might conclude that a wiretap was therefore an invasion of one's premises in violation of the Fourth Amendment, he or she would not do so on the stem of the issue of privacy as such(prenominal) because the concept of privacy does not appear directly anywhere in the Constitution. It is an implied right which has been attributed to nonoriginalist thought, and it is one which has been extended several times to new areas. Bork complains of the use of privacy as an issue in Griswold v. Connecticut to lift out down an anti-contraceptive statute. The opinion, written by Justice Douglas, created this right of privacy in Bork's mind out of whole cloth:

This creative thinker is also expressed in different form by Brennan, who states,

Kay (1988) notes that there are a number of objections which can and have been raised to original intent, beginning with the idea that it is impossible to accomplish. This is rootage because "it is conceptually impossible to ascertain the lawmaker's original intentions in such a way as to make them applicable to genuine instances of constitutional adjudication" (Kay, 1988, 236). The second reason for this is simply that it is too intemperate to accomplish first because the original intentions considered are not those of individuals but
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!