Steve had a post a couple of weeks ago called “NH Senators Shaheen and Hassan Vote to Protect “Warrantless” Online Surveillance” where he called out Democrat US Senators (NH Socialists) Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie “The Red” Hassan.
They voted to allow the Government to spy on you online without first getting a warrant (Pesky thing, that Fourth Amendment that Constitutionally is supposed to protect us against Government):
After a 59-37 vote, an amendment to the Patriot Act that would have given greater protection to Americans’ browsing and search history from law enforcement surveillance narrowly
New Hampshire Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen joined eight Senate Democrats and 27 Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in opposition to the amendment, which failed to pass by a single vote.
Either Senator Shaheen or Hassan could have been the deciding vote to secure more privacy for NH citizens, but no. They voted against it. Why? “because it would have made it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute terrorists than it currently is for them to investigate and prosecute other types of criminals.”
That was Hassan’s office. Shaheen’s cited the same reason
The Biden Administration wants to do to the Fourth Amendment what Democrats have been trying to do to the First and Second.
The Daily Wire is reporting:
Biden Admin Presses Supreme Court To Let Police Enter Homes Without A Warrant And Seize Firearms: Report
Democrat President Joe Biden’s administration pressed the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a warrantless gun confiscation this week when the nation’s top court heard oral arguments in Caniglia v. Strom. The case that started after Edward Caniglia, 68, got into an argument with his wife, Kim, in 2015 that ultimately ended up with the police seizing Caniglia’s firearms. After fighting, Kim went and stayed at a hotel and later contacted law enforcement, believing that her husband might hurt himself. Edward did not have a criminal record or any history of self-harm.
Cutting to the chase (the “Danger, Danger, Will Robinson!!!” part below): she went to a hotel, called the police to do a wellness check, browbeat him into going to the hospital for a psych eval after promising not to take his guns. The police LIED to the wife, took the guns ANYWAYS under the doctrine of “Community Caretaking” (something I have never heard of which has been more about removing cars from accidents or arrests on the roads). And now in order to get them back, it has risen to the level of SCOTUS.
And as always, we see a bureaucrat (even if wearing a badge) going after Powers not given to them by “re-imagining” the “re-interpretation” of those Powers. And now trying to make it codified and legal and bending a Constitutional protection all out of shape.
And having seen it done once writ small, Biden want it to write LARGE – and is a giant dangerous to both us and to the Constitution itself:
This risk featured prominently in the amicus briefs filed by gun-rights advocates. “Expansion of the ‘community caretaking’ exception into the home will be used by police in jurisdictions with onerous or constitutionally-questionable firearm restrictions to turn every call to a house into a search for guns under the pretext of ‘helping’ those present,” warned a joint amicus brief filed by the Second Amendment Law Center, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, and Gun Owners of California. Simply put, “the Fourth Amendment has no ‘gun’ exception.”
Although Caniglia v. Strom centers around seizing guns from someone suspected of being suicidal, its reach will be much, much broader. Should the Supreme Court adopt the Biden Administration’s argument that “the Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless seizure or home entry that is reasonably necessary to protect health or safety,” such public health and safety concerns could “become a pretext for law enforcement,” argued Shay Dvoretzky, who argued for Caniglia before the High Court.
Once again, we see “Safetyism” (e.g.: Sununu’s “Public Health trumps EVERYTHING!”) riding roughshod over black letter Constitutional restrictions against Government. For how much more are we going to allow Government to do to us? That it shouldn’t have even thought of doing in the first place?
The Constitution lays things out fairly simply and plainly – full of checks and balances that were to keep from Power from being aggregated within it and from terrorizing Citizens. As Steve points out, if our elected Representatives won’t just heed the actual text of the Constitution and certainly NOT following the SPIRIT and ethos of it, perhaps Article 10 is the only Off switch?
