 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once again, the United States Supreme Court has used an unconstitutional War on Drugs to further undermine and erode more of the freedoms the Constitution recognizes and is supposed to protect.
The 8-1 ruling against citizen Charles McArthur weakens an already anemic Fourth Amendment. This amendment says that:
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.
According to a CNN.com report, four years ago, while moving out of their trailer home, McArthur's wife informed police that Charles had hidden marijuana inside. Foolishly, McArthur left the trailer after he denied a request by an officer to search the premises. Police then refused to allow the citizen to reenter his own home while they waited for a warrant.
McArthur reportedly admitted he would, naturally, have flushed the marijuana if given the opportunity. This understandable attitude on Charles's part apparently convinced the justices that the "practical" needs of law enforcement overrode any trivial concerns with privacy or the sanctity of property rights. "Efficiency" and pragmatism -- rather than any deep understanding of or concern for legal or moral principles -- characterized this ruling from what has proven to be a rather schizophrenic court.
Justice Breyer asked McArthur's lawyer, "Why isn't what [the officer] did a good thing?"
Where to begin? How about the fact that the Constitution does not authorize the Congress to pass any laws regulating what products citizens may or may not purchase or ingest? How about the fact that Mr. McArthur violated no one's rights, i.e., he initiated violence against no one? How about the fact that police have better things to do than satisfy the vindictive impulses of an annoyed spouse?
The State has passed so many laws and regulations intruding into so many aspects of life that none of us can avoid violating some dictum or another. (See my essay, "You Are a Criminal," for more discussion of this point.) In today's constricted society, a charge of engaging in an "illegal" act excuses yet more abuses. After all, if you are a "crook" or a "perpetrator," why, you deserve what happens to you.
Upholding "law and order" makes for a common and appealing campaign slogan, but such a stance can be devastatingly unjust when the laws themselves violate your rights. (As an aside, this is the fatal flaw in the National Rifle Association's mantra of "enforce the gun laws we already have." Most of those tens of thousands of laws already violate our rights and should be repealed.) Enforcing every single law on the books with the zealousness advocated by proponents of "law and order" would complete our transformation into a police state.
Despite the contentions of some of the Supreme Court justices, there was nothing "reasonable" in the actions of the police who restrained Mr. McArthur's movements.
What is frustrating about the Supreme Court's attitudes is the seemingly random judgments they have recently made. They deny the right of police to set up roadblocks for fishing expeditions designed to ensnare drug users yet uphold that same power in regard to "drunk traps." Police are not permitted to squeeze luggage of bus passengers yet can stop a pedestrian who merely turns and walks away from them.
Another case before the Court involves a man -- Danny Lee Kyllo -- who was arrested after police used a thermal scanner on his home. As detailed in a DallasNews.com story, police detected "excess" heat emanating from Kyllo's residence. (And what, objectively, constitutes an "excessive" level of heat?) Officers took that information and, in conjunction with a "tip" and information from the suspect's electricity records, obtained a warrant to search Kyllo's house. There, the police discovered marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
In arguments regarding this case, Justice Scalia asked why we should "assume we live in a world without technology" such as thermal imagers.
What an astounding statement! If we follow through on the logic of what is implied in Scalia's words, we witness what is, essentially, an advocacy of the false idea that "might makes right." Because the State can do X, it should therefore do X. In this scenario, private citizens must adjust to whatever the State wants and accept whatever limits upon their freedom arise from the State's new capabilities.
Because the State can peer into our backyards using satellites passing invisibly overhead and monitor what we're doing, should we assume that such observation is justified and cower in our basements?
Because the State can peruse all of your email, phone calls, and other forms of electronic communication using such systems as Carnivore and Echelon, should we assume that such eavesdropping is proper and self-censor everything we say or write?
Because the State can use chemical sniffers to surreptitiously check for alcohol on your breath, should we assume that the boogeyman of "drunk driving" makes all such intrusions okay?
Because the State can use sensitive metal detectors to determine if you're carrying a concealed handgun, should we assume that our right to self-defense is abrogated and go unarmed wherever such behavior is "illegal"?
Because the State can remotely read the keystrokes you make on your computer, should we assume that the First Amendment is no longer operative and write nothing critical of those in power?
Because the State can create a database of DNA obtained from every citizen, should we assume that our very genetic code belongs to our masters and that, as in the movie "Gattaca," we must "align" our lifestyles to fit the goals of those in power?
Because the State can inject electronic chips into our bodies to track our every movement, should we assume that we must accept such scrutiny as being in our "best interests"?
Because the State can remotely examine thousands of faces of sports fans entering a football stadium and quickly identify the features of even disguised fugitives, should we assume that we "have nothing to fear as long as" we've "done nothing wrong"?
As science, medicine, and technology continue to progress, the capabilities and reach of the State will continue to expand, as well. In Justice Scalia's worldview, we should be good little sheep, docilely accept this state of affairs, and accommodate the whims and desires of our caretakers in deciding how to live our lives.
A recent series of television commercials for a credit card company shows engineers blowing up skyscrapers and, in another commercial, firemen calling in helicopters, fire trucks, and scores of workers to rescue a cat in a tree. As the narrator says, simply because you have the power does not mean you should use it.
But wisdom and self-restraint are hardly the typical hallmarks of the State. Governments extend into every nook and cranny they can unless actively opposed and restrained. The agents of the State want to refashion our existences to comport with their capacities for surveillance and control. Conformity on our part makes their jobs so much easier. Adapt to the chains a link at a time, alter our attitudes and actions to fit a bland uniformity, attune ourselves to the demands of obediance, modify our souls to match the dreary blankness of an uncaring State: this is the future many would decree for us.
In sending us conflicting opinions on such issues as privacy, probable cause, and search and seizures, the Supreme Court -- unwittingly or not -- contributes to this trend and subverts the rule of law. The justices make it impossible for us to know what is or is not to be considered "legal" from one situation to another (regardless of whether such laws should even exist in the first place). By acting in arbitrary and unknowable ways, the Court violates a prime foundation of a free and just society: objective law.
As Ayn Rand pointed out, "All laws must be objective (and objectively justifiable): men must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it." ("The Nature of Government," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 110, emphasis in original.)
Given the patchwork of laws and court rulings, our hopes for relief from oppression are raised one moment and dashed the next. For those facing such unsettling conditions, "...fear becomes their basic motive...and compromise, conformity, staleness, dullness, the dismal grayness of the middle-of-the-road are all that can be expected of them." (Rand, "Vast Quicksands," The Objectivist Newsletter, July, 1963, emphasis in original.)
As Rand pointed out, "...it is not the known that breaks men's spirits, but the unpredictable. A dictatorship has to be capricious; it has to rule by means of the unexpected, the incomprehensible, the wantonly irrational;...a state of chronic uncertainty is what men are psychologically unable to bear." ("Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason," The Voice of Reason, p. 254.)
A person's home long ago ceased to be his castle. Eminent domain, asset forfeiture, and no-knock raids merely presaged the more egregious violations of our privacy rampant today. We are no longer expected or encouraged to stand tall and proud as free men and women. No. Today we are supposed to do only that which pleases those in power. The occasional bone tossed to us by the Supreme Court merely reinforces the fact and extent of their control. We cannot look to the justices for relief from our bondage.
If we are ever again to experience true liberty, we will have to seize that freedom for ourselves.
