U.S Constitution Flexibility

The Fourth Amendment addresses questions of search and gaining control and is worded as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, ho put ons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, unless upon potential cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the blank to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

These few words nurse been much argued over the years and have sufferd a outsize body of case law and controlling Court decisions formation the nature of the search situation, the need for a warrant in different situations, and the ability to use or not use evidence seized uponly by officials. Privacy issues intersect with the authorship in several different aspects, though there is no specific right of privacy enumerated in the Constitution. Cases involving the Fourth Amendment may deal with guards against physical and electronic snooping by the police, and whether privacy in this context crumb be justified by " authoritative innovation" has been a controversy. This is the sort of case to be considered below--we fill in that the Fourth Amendment applies to physical searches in a domicile, but does it in like manner protect conversations over the telephone so that government wiretaps pick up a warrant?

The essence of the doctrine of original intent is explained in a speech by Justice Brennan (1985):

However, Brennan would modify this attempt somewhat and describes this approach as one that "feigns self-effacing deference to the specific judgments" (Brennan, 1985, 4) of the Framers. Bork (1987), on the other hand, not merely explains original intent but insists that it is the only legitimate basis for make decisions based on the Constitution, and he further explains what intentionalism means:

Meese (1985) indeed finds that the language employ by the framers was being used by them "to write a document not just for their times but for descendants" (Meese, 1985, 23).

This does not mean that the language is so flexible that it can be interpreted in any way sought after by later generations, however:

The Constitution is not a legislative code bound to the time in which it was written. Neither, however, is it a mirror that simply reflects the thoughts and ideas of those who stand before it (Meese, 1985, 24).

Hall, K.L. (1992). The Oxford companion to the Supreme Court. New york: Oxford University Press.

[Douglas] observed that many supplyings of the Bill of Rights could be viewed as protection of aspects of personal privacy. He then generalised these particulars into an overall right of privacy that applies even where no provision of the Bill of Rights does (Bork, 1987, 16).

Bork, R.H. (1987, Summer). "Original intent." The Judges' Journal: 13-17.

In addressing an issue such as the application of the fourth Amendment to telephonic communications, it would be wrong to assume that a decision one way or the other would identify the person making the decision as an originalist or non-originalist, for as Brest notes, "moderate originalism and nonoriginalism so often produce identical results" (Brest, 1980, 237). The nonoriginalist does not ignore the text and treats it as presumptively binding and limiting "but as neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for constitutional decision making" (Brest, 1980, 237).

Another objection raised is th
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!