From: Charles B. "Brad" Frye <[b f rye] at [delphi.com]> Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: The brazen judicial activism in Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade Date: Tue, 18 Apr 95 01:34:01 -0500 Michael Loomis <[ml 3 e] at [andrew.cmu.edu]> writes: >intents to "the original intent". The "original intent" doctrine is >also absurd in that it would require us to re-ratify the Bill of Rights >every twenty or thirty years so that the Constitution would mean what we >interpret it to mean. It is a silly waste of time for us to amend again >the Constitution with the exact text of the First Amendment just so we Sorry to truncate the quote, but, I just wanted to add a note of personal experience re: "original intent." When I was just starting out as a young lawyer (who didn't know any better than to get involved in criminal law), I tried those "original intent" arguments in search and seizure cases. (Hey, what did I know? I read the Constitution's first ten amendments, I thought "no warrantless searches," "probable cause," and that stuff actually meant something.) But, the terrible-evil-bad liberal Supreme Court had "tied the police's hands" by doing away with the idea of "probable cause" and requiring warrants for searches and seizures and trivial, mundane stuff like that. Cops *could* kick down doors "in hot pursuit" (I never found that one in the ol' Bill of Rights), police could stop on "reasonable suspicion" (I wonder what *that* meant in 1775-1786?), law enforcement could perform a "pat down search" to protect themselves and the alleged wrongdoer (and admit the drugs they invariably found while looking for machines guns in tennis shoes) and no one ever told me about the Redcoats' doing "pat downs," and, after a couple of years, I was thouroughly confused about this "original intent" stuff. Now, of course, the DEA can detain citizens in bus stations and airports if they fit "drug courier profiles" (General Howe would've *loved* that one, doncha know? -- "Say, old chap, a moment, please? You just sort of have that, oh, 'rebel' look about you. Would you step this way, please, until we can establish that you have none of those nasty Tom Paine brochures stuffed down your underpants?") The Border Patrol can stop you just because you look Hispanic. The local boys can "detain" you if they "reasonably believe" that you "fit" certain "characteristics" of one who "may" have recently engaged in "criminal activity," especially if you "fit" one of their "expert criteria" indicating "gang" involvement. This "original intent" stuff is horse-you-know-what. If Judge Bork or Justice Rehnquist *really* believed in "original intent," they would go back to the original text of the Bill of Rights and enforce the plain language: no warrantless searches, no warrant without probable cause. Not "reasonable suspicion," not "good faith belief," actual, honest to goodness, fact-based, old-fashioned, "probable cause," with a warrant that "particularly describes" the person or items to be seized. Perhaps then, and only then, would American citizens be "secure" in their houses, persons, and papers. Yeah, some crooks would take advantage of our rights. Yeah, it would be harder to catch drug dealers. But, hey, living in a free society is a bitch, you know? Regards, Brad