Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (21411)	6/19/2006 1:12:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541761

I wasn't mentioning Lenny Bruce in the contest of the 4th Amendment, that's a 1st Amendment case. You brought him up as an example that shows that the recent USSC decision was problematic. I agree that its a 1st amendment case, that's why I don't think his case is very relevant to the current discussion. With respect to the 4th Amendment, the Constitution requires a search warrant issued with probable cause before a search can be legal, but doesn't specify the penalities if this requirement is violated. In the case that was reviewed by the USSC there was a warrant issued with probably cause. There are plenty of judge-made rules in Constitutional law, that's the way courts work in common law jurisdictions. The USSC doesn't have a mandate to make common law. Its supposed to interpret the constitution and federal law. It effectively does create law, and since it can't be appealed its decisions will have the force of law even if they are not based on anything actually in the constitution or in federal law. If the decision is about federal law than congress can effectively overrule the decision but not on constitutional issues.