Does The 4th Amendment Limit Our Freedoms?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by yakpoo, Oct 19, 2021.

  1. yakpoo

    yakpoo Well-Known Member

    The 4th Amendment says...

    "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 Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law."

    This seems to suggest that ALL searches and seizures are legal unless specifically prohibited by law.

    It's interesting to note that both Jefferson and Adams (opposite ends of the political spectrum at the time) both opposed the "Bill of Rights" (the first 10 Amendments). The reasoning was that the Constitution already spells out what the Federal government "can" do. Everything else is reserved for the States or the People. By spelling out specific things the Federal government "can't do", it brings the idea of limited government into question.

    There's nothing in the Constitution that I know of that permits the Federal government to search or seize anything. Yet, the 4th Amendment only protects against "unreasonable" search and seizure. Is it the 4th Amendment that authorizes defacto searches and seizures by the Federal government?

    How has our revenue collection agency become the lead law enforcement agency for cases that have nothing to do with revenue collection. Direct taxation is being used to make 4th Amendment violations "legal".
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2021
  2. Mopar Dude

    Mopar Dude Well-Known Member

    I think that what you are getting at here is the IRS investigating personal bank transactions of $600.00. I have been in stunned disbelief since I heard of the proposal. In fact, I thought my leg was being pulled… Until I researched the thing….. And for the life of me. Why every human being in this country isn’t jumping up and down about it is so far beyond my comprehension. I refuse to believe that it can happen in a free nation.
    yakpoo and StankyBoy like this.
  3. toughcoins

    toughcoins Rarely is the liberal viewpoint tainted by realism

    The public needs to advise the banking industry to push back.

    The feds are only trying this because they think the banking industry will play along.

    It's a lose/lose scenario for all involved.

    The banks really don't want to deal with this any more than we do. It would create tremendous amounts of work for them with no benefit, drive up customers fees to cover the increased expense, and drive away the business they are trying to retain.

    Moreover, the gargantuan increase in federal employment that would be needed to process and follow up on this data will reduce our already low return on tax dollars, rather than increase it.

    This is just another liberal fishing expedition . . . this time not for non-existant conservative wrongdoing, but for freebies off the money tree.
    yakpoo and StankyBoy like this.
  4. yakpoo

    yakpoo Well-Known Member

    I'm jumping up & down!

    Just because the Bill of Rights emphasizes certain rights doesn't mean they are our ONLY rights! ;)
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2021
    Mopar Dude likes this.
  5. toughcoins

    toughcoins Rarely is the liberal viewpoint tainted by realism

    We American citizens have had to tighten our belts a notch.

    To Congress . . . it's time for you to do the same . . . just suck it up dammit!
    Mopar Dude, Profiler and yakpoo like this.
  6. toughcoins

    toughcoins Rarely is the liberal viewpoint tainted by realism

    We, individually, are owners of our respective financial information, not the banks. The banks are free to report the total of their assets and liabilities, the number of account holders they have, their reserves, etc., to the government, but they are not free to release our information without our consent.

    If the government wants your information from the bank, they may acquire it, but not without submitting a warrant for it to the bank.

    The government shall not be granted such a warrant without reasonable cause. By requiring a bank to report information that belongs to a broad swath of its customers, without naming the specific target and the nature of its inquiry, it is violating the intent of the US Constitution.

    Any law or policy supporting such reporting requirements may be challenged on the above basis.

    Furthermore, if the banks sided with the government in reporting such information, they could be reined in with a class action brought by customers who object to the bank releasing information requested in such a broad, unspecified way.
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2021
    yakpoo, Profiler and Mopar Dude like this.
  7. Mopar Dude

    Mopar Dude Well-Known Member

    What bank would do that? All the added red tape and expense.... The customer base that would vanish..... I sure do hop you are right, TC.... Not because I have anything to hide. I don't.... It's just that if it were to go into effect, it would only open the door to the government being intimately intrusion in every aspect of our lives. And that door has been opened far too wide already.
    Profiler and toughcoins like this.
  8. toughcoins

    toughcoins Rarely is the liberal viewpoint tainted by realism

    I have a very serious problem with politicians who make us feel like we work for them.
    yakpoo, Mopar Dude and Profiler like this.
  9. yakpoo

    yakpoo Well-Known Member

    I agree...but it's worth noting that we're already being monitored at the $10,000 level. Simply dropping the ceiling from $10,000 to $600 seems like a fait accompli.
    Profiler likes this.
  10. toughcoins

    toughcoins Rarely is the liberal viewpoint tainted by realism

    Actually, I heard yesterday that they gave up on the $600 threshold.
    yakpoo and Profiler like this.
  11. yakpoo

    yakpoo Well-Known Member

    They should give up on the $10,000 threshold, also. None of this stuff is Constitutional. Agreed...government coercion makes things more efficient. I never said it didn't. That's why government has to be limited. It's far too easy to get carried away in one direction or another. Constitutional rights are absolute.

Share This Page