From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:57:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.063352.25629@leland.Stanford.EDU> richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter) writes:
>|> I didn't mean to imply otherwise. However, what it "says" is not always
>|> clear (for example, do wire taps constitute a "search" or a "siezure"?
>|> If not, is a warrant required for such taps under the Fourth Amendment?) 

>Yes, in some cases what it says is not clear, or can't be clearly applied to
>all cases.  In this case, the proper thing to do is to amend it so that it is
>clear.  For example, people should be guaranteed the right to be secure in
>their communications, as well as their persons and papers.

Why? If, for example, a police officer followed someone to a bar (without
his knowledge) and tried to overhear his converstation, would this
violate his rights? If a citrizen overhears a conversation, in which
a crime is being planned, he can tell the police about it, and his
testimony is admissable in court. 

You could make the distinction of private versus public communication? But
how do you draw the line? A ham radio broadcast would be public, not
private (since anyone with a recever can listen in), but many phone
companies broadcast calls (via microwave relays and satellites) does
this make them public or private?

But, all details asside, we agree on one key point: The proper thing to 
do is amend the Constitution to protect the right. We should _not_
(which was the source of my objections) have a Supreme Court making
arbitraty decisions about what extra provisions _should_ be in the
Constitution and acting as if they were.

>Furthermore, you could easily decide this question based on the common meaning
>of the terms involved.  For example, a wire tap does constitute a search
>because it gives information to the authorities that they didn't previously
>have.  This is exactly equivalent to going to someone's house and searching
>through their papers.

It isn't exactly equivilent, since they do not have to search through
and private property to get this information (would you include, for
example, searching through police files, for records of previous arrests
and a "search" under the Fourth Amendment?) 

>|> I consider original intent to be a way to better understand the text
>|> and what it says. But in cases where the original intent disagrees
>|> with the text, the text certainly takes precedence.

>Yes, the original intent would be fine if our world would stand still for it. 
>However, for the document to be meaningful in today's society, it has to be
>judged on its current meaning, not the meaning it had up to two hundred years
>ago when the words were first written.

How do you impartially and objectively define "current meaning"? If you
can not, then you are rejecting the rule of law (and going back to
court ruling by the personal whim of the judge). Since I can't
see how "current meaning" can be so defined, I prefer to stick to the
original, intended meaning of the text. If this is acrhaic and inappropriate,
the it should be amendmend and corrected, not altered based on a 
judge's political biases (which have nothing to do with the consent of
the people.)

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives