There is no such thing as a Right To Search. Government has the Power To Search but individuals have a multitude of Rights that get in the way of the government’s power to search.
A search by the government begins it’s life in opposition to the Law of The Land which not only does not give government the power to search the background of any individual within it’s jurisdiction, it opposes it. How does an individual, a single, solitary person get away with telling the entire apparatus of government it may not search the background of any individual?
One way is to demand government stop it’s search. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution did that when it was proposed in 1789 and approved in 1791, 229 years ago.
“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.” That’s the Fourth Amendment but there’s and even earlier prohibition against a search of the background of each individual, the Law of Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
In 529 the Emperor of Rome, Justinian the First issued what has become known as the Code of Justinian. That’s One Thousand Fourteen Hundred and Eighty Seven years ago but the Presumption of Innocence goes even further back in history. The Roman judge Paulus wrote about it in around 222 AD. That’s almost 1,800 years ago.
“… AS JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO POINTED OUT EARLIER THIS YEAR, [THE BACKGROUND CHECK] IS ALSO A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, BECAUSE IT COMPELS PEOPLE TO SPEAK, PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THEMSELVES.”
Questions used in background checks include queries into the consumer’s mental health history, domestic violence, and questions about illegal drug use. All issues that are private and should be the business of the individual, not the state.
“AT THE SAME TIME, [THE BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM] COULD BE SEEN AS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE AGAINST YOURSELF IN ORDER TO REQUIRE A GUN. AND ALSO THE TENTH AMENDMENT, BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION … IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS EXPLICITLY STATED AS A POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE US CONSTITUTION.
IF ANYBODY HAS THAT POWER WOULD BE THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. BUT EVEN STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT SO IT WOULD BE QUESTIONABLE FOR THEM TO EVEN EMPLOY THIS SORT OF TACTIC TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM HAVING GUNS.”
Despite the unconstitutionality of background checks, Dick tells Paul, Obama wants to expand this system.
By requiring more people to go through the system through his executive orders, Obama forces people wanting to sell just one or two guns to have a license. That’s a clear SECOND AMENDMENT VIOLATION. If people refuse to obtain a license and the federal government has a problem with that, they could face penalties up to $200,000.
A PROVISION SNUCK INTO the still-secret text of the Senate’s annual intelligence authorization would give the FBI the ability to demand individuals’ email data and possibly web-surfing history from their service providers without a warrant and in complete secrecy.
If passed, the change would expand the reach of the FBI’s already highly controversial national security letters. The FBI is currently allowed to get certain types of information with NSLs — most commonly, information about the name, address, and call data associated with a phone number or details about a bank account.
Since a 2008 Justice Department legal opinion, the FBI has not been allowed to use NSLs to demand “electronic communication transactional records,” such as email subject lines and other metadata, or URLs visited.
Unfortunately the spy bill passed the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, with the provision in it. The lone no vote came from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who wrote in a statement that one of the bill’s provisions “would allow any FBI field office to demand email records without a court order, a major expansion of federal surveillance powers.” That’s a FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION.
Any violation of any part of the Constitution is also a violation of THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, which means it’s a denial of DUE PROCESS meaning individuals have a Right to Constitutional Protection.
FIRST, SECOND, FOURTH, FIFTH, TENTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.