Why the Exclusionary Rule Matters

Comments

rita's picture

The ACLU doesn't have to fight every individual case if they would get off their collective butts and uphold our Constituional rights to private property. Everything about the prohibition of drugs -- not just illegal traffic stops based on racial profiling, which this case clearly was -- EVERYTHING about it violates the Constitution.

Suverans2's picture

G'day rita,

Perhaps you didn't read this.

    G'day tzo, You wrote: "Here the Constitutionalist jumps in to point out that the Constitution—the basis of this government—is not the source of rights, but merely the declaration that those innate rights shall not be infringed upon by the government."

    It's not even that, in my opinion, because, to be more precise, their beloved Constitution states that their voluntary members innate [natural] rights cannot be infringed upon by the government without "due process of law" , and, as has been mentioned elsewhere, "due process of law" is whatever the fox guarding the hen house says it is.

    "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation*." ~ Excerpted from Amendment V of the Bill of Rights [Emphasis added]

    * Care to take a guess at who gets to decide what "just compensation" is?

    Furthermore, if that is true, then the opposite is also true, that is to say, if their voluntary members innate rights cannot be infringed upon by the government without "due process of law", then their innate rights can be infringed upon by the government with "due process of law", which, again, because it bears repeating, is whatever the fox guarding the hen house says it is.

P.s. rita, your "right", i.e. your "just claim", to your justly acquired property is not a "Constitutional right", it is an innate right, i.e. a natural right.