Response to Andy McCarthy

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:19:50 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

Radley Balko, The Agitator - good commentary on the recent Supremes ruling allowing evidence collected in a no-knock raid. [notreason]

As I hinted at above, there's an old libertarian joke that says if the Bill of Rights wre put up for a vote today in Congress or most any state legislature, it would likely lose across the board.

Which is why there are some rights that aren't revocable by vote (or, to borrow a term, "inalienable"). One of them is our right "to be secure in" our "persons, houses, papers, and effects" against "unreasonable searches and seizures." And in Wilson, the Court agreed that the long established Castle Doctrine, which prevents police from entering a home unannounced save for in limited circumstances, was a fundamental part of that security we enjoy. These things aren't subject to a vote. And because all other remedies to violations of this right are clearly insufficient to adequately protect it, the Court should have preserved the exclusionary rule.

Fundamental rights aren't subject to the democratic process.

Add comment Edit post Add post