Grey Matters Media

The fourth amendment of the United States Constitution provides protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Number 4 was introduced in response to the writs of assistance that helped fan the flames of the American Revolution. The writs were open-ended warrants granted by the British parliament to search the American people and their property indefinitely.¹ These writs could be passed between authorities and granted immunity to authorities for any damage they caused using the writ. The American Bill of Rights then offered U.S. citizens this right:

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.²

This week, an 81 page memo was released by the Defense and Justice departments that provided “an expansive argument for nearly unfettered presidential power in a time of war.”³ Reading closely, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) noticed a footnote referring to the fourth amendment:

Indeed, drawing in part on the reasoning of Verdugo-Urquidez, as well as the Supreme Court’s treatment of the destruction of property for the purposes of military necessity, our Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations. See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and William J. Haynes, n, General Counsel, Department of Defense, from John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel, Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Te17′0rist Activities Within the United States at 25 (Oct 23, 200 I).⁴

Unfortunately, the memo to which the footnote refers has not been released to the public.

The Bush administration has attempted to create a grey area where none exists. Instead of venturing into the sensitive subject of suspending Constitutional rights, the memo attempts to classify any questionable federal agency activity as a domestic military operation. The EFF goes on to analyze that if domestic surveillance by the NSA is considered a domestic military operation then the “Yoo memo would blow a loophole in the Fourth Amendment big enough to fit all of our everyday telephone calls, web searches, instant messages and emails through.”⁵

The policy described in the released memo empowers the federal government to perform nearly any action without oversight. The Fourth Amendment, like the entire Constitution, was created to protect an individual’s freedom by limiting the government’s power. The nation revolted against abusive behavior over 200 years ago. To avoid despotism today, the President and his staff must be held accountable by Congress and the American people.

---

2 Responses to “Clingy Constitution: Applies Even on Slippery Slopes”

1. Mike Dromgoole Says:
   April 5th, 2008 at 11:02 am

   Arthur,

   You uncle can tell you are a democrat! Well done article, like anything it is not the memo that is dangerous but those who choose to stretch or purposely take advantage of its intent.

   Uncle Mike

2. Jeremiah Says:
   April 5th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

   I know you jest, but I think both democrats and republicans can agree that the government should not be creating legal arguments for authoritarian rule.

   The government should operate in fear of the people that it supposedly represents, not the other way around.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.