Warning: Political rant ahead!!

[Bart Fargo]

I know people don't like it when others talk politics, but this is one story I think everyone should see:

www.indianastatesman.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/03/31/406a443e6980a

One week ago today, on March 24th, the New Orleans based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling effectively giving Louisiana cops the green light to conduct searches of personal residences and businesses without a search warrant.

The ruling in United States v. Kelly Gould was in response to an appeal made by a Mr. Gould after three firearms were found in his residence following an illegal search, but Wednesday's ruling did more than just defeat Gould's case. In fact, this seemingly small case has handed a potentially dangerous loss to the Bill of Rights, and the particularly vulnerable citizens that it protects.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees "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." The language is very clear, and very devoid of any small room for interpretation: it is my right, and your right, to never have you, or your property, searched without the issuing of a search warrant, after, and only after, probable cause has been presented.

Almost as frightening as this horrendous decision is the staggering amount of apathy that has resulted from it. CNN barely mentioned it in its infinitely annoying ticker, and Headline News had a brief sixty-second story before going to their batch of "wacky, but true" stories.

Where is the outrage? When such an important right is stricken down in such a careless manner, where are the concerned citizens?

Perhaps this silence stems from a society so self-concerned that quotes like "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about anyway" are being used to rebuff any worry this new precedent might cause. And that is not the case.

Any personal right ever infringed, whether by friend or enemy, upstanding citizen or dangerous criminal, must be addressed and rectified. Any attempt to rationalize the loss of rights by subjective thought, by personal importance, is one more foot in the grave for civil liberties, and it most definitely will not always be the criminals being wronged. This is one of those slippery slopes actually worth worrying about, and best summarized by one dissenting Louisiana judge, who projected that his associates may have opened the "path to hell."

Perhaps it shouldn't serve as such a surprise that a nation which so easily demonized the American Civil Liberties Union would find it such an easy pill to swallow. The ACLU, which dedicates itself to defending the rights of every citizen, has been turned into a far-left organization, a haven for kooks and crazies, by the American public. No longer does it stand for continuing America's long ballyhooed freedom as much as it is now a national inside joke, and that's so very unfortunate considering the causes in which they are active in.

Depressingly, the ACLU might not even be able to have this decision overturned, but even more frightening is the prospect that no one outside of that particular organization really cares anyway. Following the limiting of freedoms since the inception of the Patriot Act citizens are less inclined to consider personal freedoms that important, and so the slope is slippery, and it looks like someday we will actually see what's at the bottom.

Maybe it's just me, but I think there was something very wrong done to this guy here...

[Buddhist Kitten]

I didn't read all of it. I am too hyper from the glory of Spring Break.

MUST HAVE MORE OVALTINE!!!

[Mister Wilbur]

Oh no... There goes The Bill of Rights. America's going turn into a very bad country. But luckily other courts can override that courts ruling, deeming it unconstitutional.

[CherokeeJack]

I think alot of it has to do with not understanding the importance of it. This is also very similiar to the amendment which Bush wants to ad to the patriot act, but you don't hear much about that on CNN either.

Im not a big fan of "legalism" it gets far blurred when its just "right" or "wrong" there are always exceptions, but this guys rights were violated. I don't know who Kelly Gould is, but if he is a fellon with 3 illegal fire arms, then they could of caught him on something better. I know tons of guys out here who have unregistered rifles and shotguns for hunting (bad idea, but they do) and it would suck if they got on the wrong side of some cop one day and the cop knew that the guy just had a rifle for hunting and decided to search his house without a warrant and plug him with possesion of illegal fire arms.

anyway... there should be more outrage.

You shouldnt fully trust any government system. It's run by humans and they make mistakes.

[Ator]

What you just read is the beginning of the Patriot Act and Victory Act obliterating the constitution, and turning America into a country ruled by a few elitists with such an iron fist, it would make Hitler jealous.

[Bart Fargo]

Mr. said:

Oh no... There goes The Bill of Rights. America's going turn into a very bad country. But luckily other courts can override that courts ruling, deeming it unconstitutional.

The problem with that is this: in order to get an appeal, you have to prove that there was evidence not discussed (or thrown out) in the original case, or that the judge was of unsound mind.

[Afgncaap5]

This is, to put it lightly, a bad thing.

However, I'd like to point out that it happened in Louisiana. As a brief resident of the Pelican State, I'd like to point out that the laws and things don't necessarily always work the same way, and that breaches of rights like this can come for a while before vanishing as soon as they're challenged.

For instance, I was there when they made it law that students must refer to teachers as "sir" or "ma'am." Now, I was of the opinion that students should've been doing that anyway (due to the style of politeness inherent in some of Louisiana's speech patterns), but I was outraged when they made it a law. That's a direct violation of first amendment rights.

I was the only one who was really worried about that thing. Later, when the issue was actually brought up in court, the law was deemed silly and removed, hopefully to never bother people again.

Now, if this had been the Supreme Court and not just the New Orleans based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, I'd be worried. I'm not even convinced that their ruling holds state-wide influence, as Baton Rouge is the capital of that state.

In short, I both agree that this is something that people need to be angry about, but I also think that it won't bother us for too long.