Wineocerous said:
You seem terrible confused. To "interpret" in this context is simply to determine the meaning of. English, like all natural languages, is an imprecise tool. As such its meaning, even as crafted by those most skilled in its use, is more often than not subject to at least some degree of interpretation. ...
This is a contradiction. "Interpret" has two applicable meanings in this discussion. One is to simply determine the meaning as you stated, and the other is to give one's own conception of or to construe. In what you said here, you've used both definitions. If "some degree of interpretation" is involved, it certainly is not to simply determine the meaning of something, but to add one's own conception. Nothing in the Constitution is so vague that there is any room for that sort of interpretation. The Fourth Amendment is no exception.
Wineocerous said:
Now, when SCOTUS accepts a case consisting of a challenge to a given statute that has been made on constitutional grounds, the court is generally faced with the task of determining if the challenged law is in compliance with the relevant portion(s) of the Constitution. In order to do that the court must quite often figure out the precise meaning of the text contained in said portion(s) within the context of the challenged statute. This is because, owing to the aforementioned economy of verbiage, the text being evaluated may not be completely clear and unambiguous on the matter at hand. In other words, the court "interprets" the meaning of the text for this purpose.
You start out just fine here, but you fall off the wagon when you say the Court must figure out the precise meaning of the text contained in said portion(s) within the context of the challenged statute. It is the
statute that is examined to see if it fits within the context of the
Constitution! I do believe those on the Court ought to know what the Constitution says by now. It is not to be "examined"(read interpreted) in the context of a challenged statute.
This "economy of verbiage" in the Constitution is what makes it so precise, and far from the lack of clarity you seem to see in it.
Wineocerous said:
I realize that you think you're making some deep philosophical point here, but in fact you're simply offering a nonsensical argument. The men who authored the Constitution were also "under it" once it was ratified, but no reasonable person would claim that they could not interpret its meaning. The need and ability to perform such interpretation does not mean that the interpreter is somehow "above" the law being interpreted.
Here you are talking of the Constitution and of the law and trying to equate the two. Yes, most law does need interpretation. Politicians are writing it, after all, and politicians will put as much ambiguity into the law as they can. The Constitution is not constructed in such a fashion. I think the Founding Fathers knew exactly what they meant and put it in the precise language they did in order that there would be no ambiguity, no opportunity for misconstrual. In some cases they even said there shall be no construing of certain parts that could be construed, such as the Ninth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3.
Wineocerous said:
Do you really not grasp the absurd nature of your argument? ...
... You've taken your rationalization to silly extremes.
And your long-winded diatribe on search and seizure is just as silly, and astoundingly convoluted to boot.
You do yourself a disservice by resorting to abasement sans a logical rebuttal.
Wineocerous said:
... The Constitution, like all man-made law, was written by flawed mortals. As such it is an inherently imperfect expression of the intent of the authors. If the language describing laws was perfectly clear, unambiguous and not subject to any interpretation then we would have no need of any judges at all. ...
Now who is being silly? We need judges because regardless of how clear the law is, people will still break it and must be tried. The system of justice we've chosen for ourselves includes judges. The scenario you present without judges would only be appropriate in a monarchy, oligarchy, ochlocracy, dictatorship, tyranny, or anarchy.
Wineocerous said:
You're jumping through a great many hoops here just to mangle and horribly misinterpret a simple bit of English. The requirements you describe above are, in the language of the 4th, restrictions on *warrants*, not on searches themselves. There are two separate (but related) restrictions described by the 4th:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and
no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The conjunction "and" separates these two restrictions on state power with regard to search and seizure, and the verbiage you're going on about applies directly to the latter, and only indirectly to the former...and then only in case in which a warrant is the only "reasonable" path to a search or seizure. Otherwise there would have been no purpose for including the word "unreasonable" in the first part.
I haven't mangled or "misinterpreted" anything. The first part of the Fourth limits government and the second part actually grants power to government. It tells government how to conduct a search and/or seizure. The "and" is a coordinating conjunction, tyeing the two independent clauses,
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and the second clause,
no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, together. The "but" acts as a preposition in this case, meaning "except". It can't be considered a conjunction because
upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. is not an independent clause. It's an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying the verbal "shall issue".
It is undeniably clear that the Founding Fathers intended all searches and seizures to be conducted under the authorization of a written warrant. Due Process must take part. It's no different than the construction of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. Ah, but the best is next:
The same construction is used in the Third Amendment, and the Third Amendment HAS a provision in which government may ask a person to forgo the protection of the amendment. There is no such provision in the Fourth. That is precedent. Those who know to take the Amendments in the context of the Constitution can see that the Court is wrong, and so is anyone else who says it is constitutional for government to ask someone to forgo the protections of the Fourth.
I love words almost as much as I love guns.
Woody
I see it clearly as fact. Words mean things. Just as numbers have value, you can add, subtract, multiply and divide them. I just do the math. B.E. Wood
On a side note, I'm back after not posting/visiting the forum in a while. 
