Democ.4thamend

just checking on things! http://lawschool.unm.edu/Student_orgs/ACLU/officers.htm Democracy Civil Liberties, Patriotism Power
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/Health/Substance_Use_and_Abuse/ http://www.aclunm.org/

Guess what your rights are The Fourth Amendment may be the most eroded part of the Bill of Rights FUll PAtriot Act Students' rights

The Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights

ON SIDE: Set of bill of rights with that one enlarged.The Bl of Rights

> 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.

Detailed overview of Fourth Amendment law from FindLaw

The exception for school students involved in sports activities:

> Emphasizing the ''special needs'' of the public school context, reflected in the ''custodial and tutelary'' power that schools exercise over students, and also noting schoolchildren's diminished expectation of privacy, the Court in Vernonia School District v. Acton Supp.7 upheld a school district's policy authorizing random urinalysis drug testing of students who participate in interscholastic athletics. The Court redefined the term ''compelling'' governmental interest. The phrase does not describe a ''fixed, minimum quantum of governmental concern,'' the Court explained, but rather ''describes an interest which appears important enough to justify the particular search at hand.'' Supp.8 Applying this standard, the Court concluded that ''deterring drug use by our Nation's schoolchildren is at least as important as enhancing efficient enforcement of the Nation's laws against the importation of drugs . . . or deterring drug use by engineers and trainmen.'' Supp.9 On the other hand, the interference with privacy interests was not great, the Court decided, since schoolchildren are routinely required to submit to various physical examinations and vaccinations. Moreover, ''[l]egitimate privacy expectations are even less [for] student athletes, since they normally suit up, shower, and dress in locker rooms that afford no privacy, and since they voluntarily subject themselves to physical exams and other regulations above and beyond those imposed on non-athletes. The Court ''caution[ed] against the assumption that suspicionless drug testing will readily pass muster in other contexts,'' identifying as ''the most significant element'' in Vernonia the fact that the policy was implemented under the government's responsibilities as guardian and tutor of schoolchildren. Supp.10

Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance

.--In Katz v. United States, 151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. 153 This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. 155 The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled. 156 Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard. 157 ISTORY: http://256.com/gray/presume/editorials.html Drug-war oriented seizure http://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/acluofnc/goto.pl?ncpubsch Do we support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in this country? Do we support democracy and the rule of law as set forth by our Founders, intentionally to provide a set of core rights that cannot and should not be abridged? This is what we must ask our government, our representatives, our officials, and the Supreme Court – for if they are NOT there to safeguard our democratic rights, then they should not be representing the people of this country. There’s been a huge amount of talk about patriotism since September 11 , but real patriotism does not consist of waving the flag or supporting the President, but in defending our democratic rights and the civil lib erties that have made this country such a model for the world. If these freedoms are not guaranteed, as they were intended to be, if the Supreme Court feels free to contravene the Bill of Rights – the cornerstone of American democracy – rather than support and protect it – then We the People must speak out, and must defend our own rights while we still have First Amendment protections to do so. THREATS TO FIRST AMENDMENT

http://www.slipperyslope.org/hueblaw.html”> '[The provisions of the Fourth Amendment] are not mere second-class rights but belong to the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government.' Mr. Justice Jackson, dissenting in Brinegar v. United States, 1879, 1893."

Gag order The First Amendment states that ‘no law’ can abridge freedom of speech. So what part of ‘no’ doesn’t John Ashcroft understand? BY HARVEY A. SILVERGLATE By conflating disagreement and disloyalty, however, Ashcroft focuses his attack on that portion of the Bill of Rights that is, by its own terms, absolute. The government "shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," states the First Amendment. To paraphrase the late justice Hugo Black, which part of "no" doesn’t the attorney general understand?