G-Max
Deity
- Joined
- May 20, 2006
- Messages
- 2,556
The main body of the U.S. Constitution is pretty specific about what it says; most of the confusion arises over some antiquated terms like "bills of credit", "corruption of blood", "letters of marque and reprisal", "offenses against the law of nations", but these all have very specific meanings that people can look up if they feel so inclined. The only vague terms are (apparently) "commerce among the states" and "judicial power", with "commerce among the states" being often interpreted as "anything that we feel like regulating", and "judicial power" somehow including the legislative power to repeal laws that don't fit with what 5/9ths of the Supreme Court think the Constitution says.
The Bill of Rights is a bit more vague. It doesn't clarify how much bail is "excessive" or what punishments qualify as "cruel and unusual", nor what periods of time qualify as a "speedy" trial, nor what compensation would qualify as "just" in cases of eminent domain. Very, very importantly, it doesn't clarify what "due process" or "probable cause" mean.
For a while, I've basically assumed that "due process of law" included, at the very least, finding evidence that a crime had been committed, and "probable cause" referred to such evidence. Unfortunately, the actual definitions are quite a bit more broad. Freedom against "unreasonable" search and seizure doesn't mean much when "probable cause" can include anything that a lawmaker calls "reasonable grounds for holding a belief", and according to Dictionary.com, "due process" is "the regular administration of the law, according to which no citizen may be denied his or her legal rights and all laws must conform to fundamental, accepted legal principles" Basically, if the law says that something is due process, then it is, unless the Constitution says otherwise.
What does this mean? Well, if cops search and seize people and their property without a warrant just for wearing a turban or visiting Storm Front, most people would consider this "unreasonable search and seizure", but if the law says that wearing a turban or visiting Storm Front is "probable cause" to believe that someone is a terrorist, then these warrantless searches and seizures are "due process" instead. If the law says that Barack Obama can order the "reasonable" seizure and indefinite detention of American citizens without any formal prosecution, and he does it, then that's due process of law (note that the rights to a speedy trial and to hear the charges against you don't kick in until you are actually charged with something). Most shockingly, the Constitution even explicitly permits this, provided that it only happens "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it". It was used extensively by Abraham Lincoln, though back then, they called it "suspending habeas corpus", not "indefinite detention"
So yeah, you can complain about being denied charges, a trial, and a lawyer... but don't complain that you were denied due process, and you certainly can't claim that it's unconstitutional!
(note: I am in no way defending this law. I'm just pointing out that the US Constitution is not quite the bulletproof shield of freedom that we all like to pretend it is)
The Bill of Rights is a bit more vague. It doesn't clarify how much bail is "excessive" or what punishments qualify as "cruel and unusual", nor what periods of time qualify as a "speedy" trial, nor what compensation would qualify as "just" in cases of eminent domain. Very, very importantly, it doesn't clarify what "due process" or "probable cause" mean.
For a while, I've basically assumed that "due process of law" included, at the very least, finding evidence that a crime had been committed, and "probable cause" referred to such evidence. Unfortunately, the actual definitions are quite a bit more broad. Freedom against "unreasonable" search and seizure doesn't mean much when "probable cause" can include anything that a lawmaker calls "reasonable grounds for holding a belief", and according to Dictionary.com, "due process" is "the regular administration of the law, according to which no citizen may be denied his or her legal rights and all laws must conform to fundamental, accepted legal principles" Basically, if the law says that something is due process, then it is, unless the Constitution says otherwise.
What does this mean? Well, if cops search and seize people and their property without a warrant just for wearing a turban or visiting Storm Front, most people would consider this "unreasonable search and seizure", but if the law says that wearing a turban or visiting Storm Front is "probable cause" to believe that someone is a terrorist, then these warrantless searches and seizures are "due process" instead. If the law says that Barack Obama can order the "reasonable" seizure and indefinite detention of American citizens without any formal prosecution, and he does it, then that's due process of law (note that the rights to a speedy trial and to hear the charges against you don't kick in until you are actually charged with something). Most shockingly, the Constitution even explicitly permits this, provided that it only happens "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it". It was used extensively by Abraham Lincoln, though back then, they called it "suspending habeas corpus", not "indefinite detention"
So yeah, you can complain about being denied charges, a trial, and a lawyer... but don't complain that you were denied due process, and you certainly can't claim that it's unconstitutional!
(note: I am in no way defending this law. I'm just pointing out that the US Constitution is not quite the bulletproof shield of freedom that we all like to pretend it is)
