The problem when you rely on unclear laws that haven’t been modified for 250 years is they haven’t been modified for 250 years.

The scale of surveillance now wasn’t even thinkable back then. The ability to encrypt. The bandwidth and latency of communication. The sheer nunber of people, the research into manipulating minds. Does the second ammendment apply to an f35 or a tank? Well it doesn’t really matter, they clearly weren’t in scope when it was written. There were no wiretapping laws in the constitution because there was no wires. unreasonable in 1780 was different to unreasonable today.

The US has famously failed to update its legal framework via the legislative branch, so It’s upto the judicial branch which seeks to be about interpreting what some wealthy farmers from 250 years ago thought, rather than asking what laws make sense today.

▲

bluecalm 5 hours ago | parent [-]

>>The problem when you rely on unclear laws that haven’t been modified for 250 years is they haven’t been modified for 250 years.

The Constitution gives you some rights but maybe not this one (to not be searched without warrant at a border). The problem is not The Constitution but the legislative branch that didn't make laws to ban it.

>>what some wealthy farmers from 250 years ago thought, rather than asking what laws make sense today

It's not the job of judges to invent laws or ponder what laws make sense. That would be legislative branch.

▲

RHSeeger 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

https://www.rightsprotection.org/the-united-states-constitut...

If the constitution doesn't take away a right from you specifically, then you have that right.

▲

hdgvhicv 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As you snipped out

> The US has famously failed to update its legal framework via the legislative branch, so It’s upto the judicial branch which seeks to be about interpreting…

▲

bluecalm 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes but it's still not the job of the judges to do that for them.

▲

suburban_strike 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Our judicial system is modeled after Judaic precepts (shoftim/shotrim/shomrim) outlined in Deuteronomy 16:18.

There, shoftim refers to judges who interpret and apply the law, requiring deep literacy in the Torah to ensure righteous judgment without favoritism or bribery. Shotrim are the enforcers of the court (sheriffs, etc.).

I don't know where people get the idea that the role of a judge is not to interpret the law. This is literally the only thing SCOTUS does.

▲

bluecalm 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It's their job to interpret but not to invent new laws or ponder which laws "make sense".

In particular just because it "makes sense" to extend 4th amendment reading doesn't justify judges just going for it. That would be legislating from the bench.

	▲	fn-mote 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		And this is a particular opinion you hold, not necessarily an agreement in the community / nation or even a belief of the legal system about itself.

▲

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

usumgallu 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]