I do however, believe the Justice Department has an obligation to act within the spirit and confines of the fourth amendment.
Good morning, Michael. My topic for today is the 4th amendment, of which you are so fond.
Do you really think that all Federal officials have a framed copy of the Bill of Rights hanging over their desks? That, when trying to decide how to proceed in any given situation, they glance toward the 4th amendment looking for guidance? Doesn't work that way.
Congress has given them specific laws, which govern their actions, and budgets, which further direct. The court system, which I know you value, has given them case law and sometimes orders. Their own agencies have given them regulations and procedures to follow. All of these are supposedly in conformance with the 4th amendment, although the Supreme Court may later decide that they are not void them. In the meantime, officials do not have to sit there staring at the 4th amendment in its pure form wondering how it would apply in any given situation. They have laws and case law and regulations and procedures to direct them. If they still have questions, they have general counsels to interpret for them, and the general counsels have the Justice Department lawyers to guide them.
The test of whether Federal officials acted in conformance with the law is to compare their actions against their own regulations and procedures, not against Michael D. Cummings's sense of the spirit of the 4th amendment. If they did not follow their own procedures, then they are at fault. If the procedures turn out to be contrary to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 4th amendment, then the procedures need to be changed, but the officials who carried them out are not at fault.
Karen
p.s. This is an explanation, not an opinion. :) |
