The Fourth Amendment: Alive, But on Life Support

It is no secret that some of our most sacred civil liberties have been under attack over the last several decades, and that those attacks have greatly accelerated in the last four years. Lovers of the Bill of Rights keep having to defend ideals that used to be basic, agreed-upon norms of our free civil society. No, the government can’t tell people (or groups of people) what political statements they can and can’t make. No, the government can’t compel people (or groups of people) to violate the tenets of their religion. No, the government cannot infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. And no, the government cannot subject people to unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that, “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.” Of course, there is plenty of ‘wiggle-room’ about what exactly that means. The courts have evaluated and ruled time and time again on what constitutes an ‘unreasonable’ search and what constitutes ‘probable cause.’ But the norms have been pretty well established at this point.

Consider the traffic stop. The police officer who pulls you over has every right to observe anything that is in plain sight in your car, and, if he observes something suspicious or possibly illegal, probable cause has been established and he may now perform a more invasive search. Statements that you make to the officer may also constitute probable cause. However, if nothing suspicious is visible in plain sight, and you don’t give the officer any reason to perform a deeper search, he can’t do it (unless you explicitly give him permission). And those are the restrictions that apply to the car . . . your person has even greater protection. Only if you are being detained as part of an investigation does it became ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment to perform a basic pat-down. Only if you are being arrested under suspicion of a crime do more invasive searches become ‘reasonable.’

And yet, for some reason, the government—particularly the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)—has declared that you or I wanting to board an airliner is somehow probable cause for a search that would be illegal in any other context unless you had been arrested under suspicion of a crime. Metal detectors are fine, as are any number of other non-invasive scans for weapons or explosives (including explosive-sniffing dogs and even back-scatter x-ray and millimeter-wave scanners that don’t display a nude image of the traveler). Only if one of those detection systems detects something suspicious is probable cause established for a more thorough search. Citizens have the right to perform legal acts—walking down the street, driving a car, or boarding an airplane—without being subjected to being photographed through their clothes.

Despite these well-established limitations, the TSA has regularly employed backscatter x-ray machines that display a nude image of the traveler to TSA agents . . . who, according to some reports, then laugh at and ridicule them. Travelers who choose not to subject themselves to these scans, either for moral reasons or because of concern about the scans’ negative health impacts, are subjected instead to an invasive pat-down that would be blatantly illegal anywhere else (again, unless the citizen had been formally detained or arrested). These pat-downs have been compared to sexual assaults by many of their victims. And all of this for no worse crime than wanting to get on an airliner, which, last I checked, wasn’t actually a crime at all.

Although the TSA wanted to blithely press ahead with the illegal scans, the U.S. Congress—with wide support from Republicans and Democrats alike—ordered that they either move to a ‘generic outline’ scan image (rather than an actual image of the traveler’s naked body) or retire the machines by June of this year. As such, the TSA has announced that the Rapiscan backscatter x-ray machines will be removed from service and replaced with machines that comply with the congressional mandate. It’s a small victory, especially since Congress shouldn’t have to specifically mandate that federal agencies comply with the Bill of Rights in the first place, and the illegal pat-down remains the only option for people who are still concerned about backscatter x-ray health impacts. But it’s nice to know that the Fourth Amendment isn’t dead, even if it is still on life support.

Battlestar Galactica: The ‘Final Five’ Revealed (Alternate Cut)

My wife and I are in the process of watching the Battlestar Galactica reboot (on Netflix), and we were very surprised to find this alternate cut of the dramatic reveal of the ‘final five’ Cylons. This version has never been seen before and contains a totally unexpected twist—one that will surprise even the most ardent fans of the series!

This video contains material that is owned by the producers of Battlestar Galactica.
It has been produced under the ‘fair use’ provisions of United States copyright law.

Legislation Based on Measurable Outcomes

One of the perennial problems with our system of government is that our laws, once passed, are rarely reevaluated. When Congress considers legislation, it is usually attempting to solve a problem . . . but it almost never comes back five or ten years later to consider whether the law actually solved that problem, and whether it had any major unintended consequences.

There are some exceptions. If a law’s consequences are negative enough, or if the problem it was supposed to solve remains a serious problem in the public consciousness, Congress will sometimes circle back and try to make improvements . . . but this only happens with a very small percentage of the laws we enact. Also, if a law is controversial enough when it first comes up, Congress will sometimes include a sunset date, at which point the law must either be reenacted by Congress or else expire.

Sunset provisions are better than nothing. One was included on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which President Bill Clinton (D) signed into law in 1994. The law had no discernible impact on gun violence, mostly because it was based on how guns look, not on how they operate or who uses them. Congress allowed it to expire in 2004, and there has been no subsequent bloodbath . . . on the contrary, our violent crime rate continues to drop. It was nice to see a useless, ineffective law drop off the books, instead of languishing there permanently.

The tax cuts signed into law by President George W. Bush (R) also had a sunset provision, but Congress renewed the vast majority of those cuts with President Barack Obama’s (D) support. The data shows that those reductions in the tax rates contributed to an eight billion dollar increase in annual federal tax revenue over the 2003-2007 period, which only began to drop again due to the largely-unrelated economic downturn. It is widely recognized that any significant tax hikes in our current economic climate would be devastating, and so Congress reenacted the bulk of a largely-successful law (although they still did increase taxes, directly on the ‘rich’ and indirectly through payroll tax increases on everybody else).

The Un-Planned Hiatus

So Off on a Tangent had a bit of an un-planned hiatus there. Sorry about that.

It’s not any one thing that got in the way of my regular posting, but rather a whole slew of things. I had furniture to assemble, light fixtures to install, holidays to celebrate, people to visit, events to attend, and—just for good measure—an awful stomach flu in December and a bad cold in January. Between those things and my regular, ongoing commitments, the site sort-of fell by the wayside.

But now that my second-illness-in-a-month is winding down and things are settling back into a normal, manageable pattern, I’m ready to make my triumphant return . . . if you want to call it that. So stay tuned; my patented brand of commentary will be back in this space shortly.

Share to:

Send to:

Wilson, Obama, and the Fiscal Cliff

President Woodrow Wilson (D) was first elected in 1912, and less than two years into his presidency the Great War—now known as World War I—broke out in Europe. Wilson issued a declaration of neutrality, and repeatedly offered to serve as an independent mediator between the warring nations, but the Central and Allied powers had little interest in suing for peace at the time. The German submarine attacks on British ocean liners in the Atlantic, most famously the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, took many U.S. citizens’ lives . . . but Wilson, in keeping with popular opinion at the time, refused to begin making preparations to enter the war.

Many Americans, including prominent figures like former President Theodore Roosevelt (R), thought that the killing of our citizens on civilian ocean liners was an act of war against the United States, and that we should respond accordingly. Additionally, they felt that we were certain to be dragged into the war sooner or later anyway, and we might as well start getting ready with a massive military buildup. This grew into the Preparedness Movement, whose supporters even went as far as setting up their own private military training camps.

With 20/20 hindsight, we know that the advocates of preparedness were right . . . but for two years it had been a defeated, unpopular political position. Although Wilson had indeed quietly launched a massive military buildup in mid-1916, he still ran for reelection on an anti-war platform, and even adopted “He kept us out of war!” as his campaign slogan. His main opponent, Supreme Court Justice Charles Evan Hughes (R), was more hawkish than Wilson, but tried to downplay the war and avoid discussing it in his appearances due to its unpopularity. During the 1916 campaigns, Roosevelt—angry that preparedness didn’t seem to be catching on—was known to tell his acquaintances that the only difference between Hughes and Wilson was a shave.

Scott Bradford is a writer and technologist who has been putting his opinions online since 1995. He believes in three inviolable human rights: life, liberty, and property. He is a Catholic Christian who worships the trinitarian God described in the Nicene Creed. Scott is a husband, nerd, pet lover, and AMC/Jeep enthusiast with a B.S. degree in public administration from George Mason University.