Role of the Supreme Court (Quick Thoughts)

Today I was watching a news show, and the discussion was the potential retirement of Justice Ginsburg in 2015. During the commentary, one comment from a pundit really caught my attention in regards to the Supreme Court. He was discussing how the 2012 Presidential Election will have a significant impact on the Court pending the winner in the General Election in November. It was the comment at the end, not so much the philosophy or jurisprudence that struck me. He said, "One of the most important things an Executive will do is nominate to the Supreme Court", this I do not disagree with. It was the reasoning that I do, because he stated after this, "The Supreme Court decides who gets equal Rights", and then proceeded to state how one candidate should "Scare the hell" out of the people if he were to win, the latter being besides the point.

The role of the Supreme Court is NOT to decide who gets equal rights, this is already addressed in multiple places on who does.

The Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

14th Amendment

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Origins of the First Amendment, Freedom of Religion: Early writings to 1787 (Part 7)

As discussed in part one of the origins of the Bill of Rights British tyranny had a lot of influence on what would eventually become the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Partially out of this tyranny and partially out of philosophy. Many writings occurred in the decades, even centuries before the American Revolution that expressed opinions which are found in the First Amendment.

A sample of these will be discussed since are well too many to going to depth on all of them, but a sample across decades and centuries will be explored here into the American Revolution.

We will look at the First Amendment in four different areas, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the press, freedom of Association and freedom to petition. The reason for this is these can be distinctly referenced to in their specific areas though in all writings they may not be combined together.

Whose liberty comes first?(Quick Thoughts)

Much news has been made in regards to the recent policy of requiring all employers to provide health insurance covering contraception, including religious organizations who may have faith based objections to such services. This presents the question of "whose liberty comes first"? Does the Church’s freedom of religious expression come before the individual?

United States vs Jones (Unwarranted GPS tracking of an individual)

I touched on this decision in Quick Thoughts as a victory for the Fourth Amendment (Fourth Amendment Victory (Quick Thoughts) in regards to unwarranted GPS tracking of an individual. Now I want to dive a little bit deeper into it, in regards to the Founding influences and how they were applied to this case. You can read the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) opinion and additional concurrence opinions here¹ (Cornell University Law School).

The Supreme Court's opinion was written by Justice Scalia and is the main one of focus here. Additional concurrence opinions were also written by Justices Sotomayor and Alito who had differing reasons based on precedent however, reaching the same conclusion.

Synopsis

The Government obtained a search warrant permitting it to install a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle registered to respondent Jones’s wife. The warrant authorized installation in the District of Columbia and within 10 days, but agents installed the device on the 11th day and in Maryland. The Government than tracked the vehicle’s movements for 28 days. It subsequently secured an indictment of Jones and others on drug trafficking conspiracy charges. The District Court suppressed the GPS data obtained while the vehicle was parked at Jones’s residence, but held the remaining data admissible because Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy when the vehicle was on public streets. Jones was convicted. The D. C. Circuit reversed, concluding that admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment. (sic from SCOTUS ruling)

Fourth Amendment Victory (Quick Thoughts)

Today the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rules law enforcement agencies may not track your privately owned vehicle with a GPS device, unless authorized by a warrant. The decision was unanimous and correct. For starters the Fourth Amendment was designed as a method to prevent the government from intruding into the private matters or property of individuals or groups unless proper cause could be justified BEFORE hand in a warrant, not the other way around.

To often the Bill of Rights has been viewed as the limit of individual or group rights, defining the limit up to what government can do, but it was not designed to do this. The Bill of Rights was designed to specifically prohibit certain actions to further limit what government may do. The Federal Government was bound by certain limits in the Constitution, and a strong argument against the Bill of Rights was that it may end up expanding Government powers, by claiming what was not specifically protected, such as this case. (see Bill of Rights or limitations).

Even though the exact specification of tracking citizens is not specifically prohibited by name in the Fourth Amendment, the concept of it being prohibited is. A person or group CAN NOT be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects if every move that person or possession is tracked. You vehicle is your effect, and you are guaranteed to be secure in it from unwarranted searches or seizures. By monitoring its every move in such a manner it is to make the effect and person unsecure from the government, effectively a search of the effect and person.

Not only is government prohibited from warrantless searches and seizures specifically in the Fourth Amendment, but this also has Ninth Amendment implications as well, that to be free from government monitoring is one of the "other rights retained by the people". This Amendment was designed to prevent such a move by the government that usurps the intention and motivation of the Bill of Rights, to protect every right retained by all people not just those specifically cited in the previous eight Amendments.