I've read it; it claims there shall be no unreasonable searches or seizures, it NEVER claims that to be a reasonable search that there must be a warrant. By our statement something in plain sight would not be reasonable unless there was a warrant.
There have been numerous times that searches were allowed without a warrant. Take the OJ trial. They call it probable cause, but that isn't listed in the Constitution. Also, when talking about supreme law of the land, there may be no law higher, but treaties signed carry the same weight of the Constitution. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:38 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: [politics] nobody else seems to be concerned > > It specifies a warrant, and the warrant has to be specific in what you are > looking for (in this case what types of conversations) and the locations > being searched (what phone number or IP address you will be spying on). > > Read the text of the amendment before you try and argue this anymore > please, > and read the 10th amendment so you can see how it would limit governments > abilities without an actual amendment. > > BTW there is no law higher than the constitution in the US. That's it. > The > root of all federal law in this country. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase Homesite Plus with Dreamweaver from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=55 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:189179 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
