Thread

1. mmh0000 · 1789758170 · focus · HN ↗

   It is insane to me that judges consistently rule that the constitution doesn't apply because there's a "border" within 100 miles.

   The 4th Amendment says, exactly:

      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.
   

   I do not know how that could be unclear. My cellphone is my effect, and arguably, also a "paper". Which SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED. But apparently, I'm too dumb to understand the sentence[1].

   [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Border_search_exception" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...

   1. dmoy · 1789763424 · focus · HN ↗

      I mean... yea we also have some shaky interpretations of the 1st amendment (see especially, assembly), 2nd, 5th (e.g. the incredible pressure for plea bargaining), 6th (which, paradoxically, is a major reason for aforementioned pressure on plea bargaining, so I kinda get it), 8th given how bad some prisons are, arguably 10th (even if I am personally not a fan of the 10th amendment so much), and arguably still the 15th (though it&#x27;s obviously orders of magnitude better than the first 100 years of its existence).

      And also various other parts of the construction, like the interstate commerce clause does some comically heavy lifting.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.