Thread

1. tantalor · 1790856794 · focus · HN ↗

   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.

   It's self explanatory.

   1. wat10000 · 1790858242 · focus · HN ↗

      I’m always confused when people say this. It’s vague as heck! That one little word in there, “unreasonable,” makes it completely up for interpretation.

      1. bad_haircut72 · 1790858566 · focus · HN ↗

         Do you think this is a reasonable use of power?

         1. ceejayoz · 1790859462 · focus · HN ↗

            Plenty will say yes. We know this.

            One of the Constitution's big failings is this sort of thing; deeply vague wording. What counts as interstate commerce? What counts as reasonable? What's considered press activity? What's considered illegal speech?

            If you were writing a new one today, you'd define some stuff more.

            1. everforward · 1790866796 · focus · HN ↗

               Thats partially that we insist on interpreting it in this contorted lens of “how the founding fathers meant it”, when words like “reasonable” seem like they’re clearly meant to reflect the current opinion of the populace. If people find it unreasonable, it is, and vice versa.

               I don’t think “interstate commerce” is unclear at all. That’s one where started with an end goal in mind and rationalized everything in between. There is no sane English reading of that passage that resembles the current interpretation at all. We just repeatedly mentally Google Translated it to Spanish and back until it was vague enough to allow what we wanted.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.