Vice President Al Gore and the Democrats, during the 2000 election
campaign, made a big deal out of who would appoint perhaps as many as
three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court during the next four-year
presidential term.
Like they do with all social issues, Gore and the Democrats attempted
to scare Americans into voting for them because that awful Republican
governor, George W. Bush, would most likely appoint nazis, right-wing
“extremists,” and other assorted thugs, low-lifes and shady characters.
In other words, conservatives. In other words, jurists who know and
understand the Constitution. In other words, not justices like
those partisan bozos on the Florida Supreme Court.
Well, here’s hoping Bush does appoint some genuine
constitutional brains to the nation’s high court. With the exception of
the few who sit there now, the bench needs a few more of them.
The justices were right. Such random and arbitrary roadblocks are an obvious violation of
the Fourth Amendment’s protection against
unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures.
However, the same court has already held that such arbitrary police checkpoints are OK if you’re trying to catch drunk drivers, because, after all, checkpoints for catching drunks serves “the public interest.”
Huh?
Let me see if I’ve got this right. If I’m driving drunk, police can set up a roadblock to catch me, arrest me, and haul me to jail and that’s OK. But not if I’m hauling drugs?
What happens if a drunk man is stopped by a police roadblock and he is also trafficking drugs? What then? Which “precedent” applies?
The ironic thing is, our Constitution was written specifically to afford all citizens equal protection under the law in all circumstances because that is “the public interest.” Duh.
Maybe you’re asking, “Dougherty, you’re not a Supreme Court justice or even a lawyer, so what the hell do you know about it?”
That would be a fair question except that the founders of this nation did not write the Constitution for lawyers; they wrote it in a manner that could be easily read and understood by everyone. They wrote precisely because they didn’t want only lawyers, judges and justices (oh, and shady politicians) to “interpret” its meaning for the rest of us. They figured if only those people could determine what it meant, tyranny and constant constitutional usurpation would not be far behind.
How prophetic.
The fact is, the Constitution is easy to understand. And the Fourth Amendment one of the most plain.
Plainly read, it means police cannot stop or arrest anyone under any circumstances without “probable cause” and without a search warrant. Being in a car and driving is not “probable cause” that you’re A) driving drunk or B) driving with drugs.
People do drive drunk, and they do use cars to transport drugs, but police are not permitted under the Constitution to make the arbitrary and otherwise unsubstantiated leap that you’re a drunk driver or a drug trafficker simply because you’re behind the wheel of a car.
Yet that’s precisely what police checkpoints do — they assume you’re guilty before it’s been proven, or before you’ve even given them genuine “probable cause” that you’ve committed any crime.
Look, it is easy to understand that most police officers and their civilian masters simply want to make life safer for the rest of us. I can appreciate that as can most other Americans.
The thing is, authorities cannot break the laws to effect more “safety,” even if intentions are pure gold.
Gore and the Democrats are only worried that a Bush administration will appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe vs. Wade’s abortion “protections.” Let’s hope so. In fact, I pray for that.
But before that political hot potato even makes it to the plate, Bush may want to think about appointing Robert Bork-type constitutionalists for the high court who will have to rule on more mundane — but equally important — constitutional issues.
Allowing police checkpoints for some things but not others demonstrates there is a need for such constitutionalists on the bench. It also indicates the high court has been selective about which amendments it wants to uphold.
