I'm no lawyer but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probably cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful...searches and seizures.
I'm no lawyer either but this doesn't sound like the words of judicial activist. Hayden, however, took issue with this statement:
No, actually...The Fourth Amendment actually, uh, protects all of us against unreasonable (his emphasis) search and seizure.
Landay: The measure is probable cause, I believe.
Hayden: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
Landay: But does it not say prob...(he is cut off by Hayden)
Hayden: No.
OK, I know the President swears an oath to uphold the Constiution but that doesn't mean that the Deputy Director of National Intelligence does. But, holy shit! How in the name of fuck does a person get such a high falutin' title and not know the Fourth Amendment?! According to the National Archives, it reads:
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.
Emphasis is mine and I make it quite emphatically. If Hayden or anyone else doesn't believe me, go look at the primary document yourself at this site. If you're too lazy to actually go look at it, here's the relevant text blown up and cropped.
Is it unreasonable to expect the Deputy Director of National Intelligence to know the Constitution?
No comments:
Post a Comment