Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Steve Chapman :: Townhall.com Columnist
Violating Rights, Without Tears
by Steve Chapman
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Rights need constitutional protection because governments have a tendency to ignore them. But it takes more than a parchment dictate to force the authorities to do what they are supposed to do. It takes penalties that make violations painful to the violator.

That's where the exclusionary rule comes in. Police face constant temptations to break the rules to nab villains and put them in jail. But this rule goes far to discourage them. Violate a criminal's rights, and he may go unpunished.

That wasn't always the case. In the old days, cops paid little attention to the Fourth Amendment because they had nothing to gain by respecting it. Only when they had to pay a price for overstepping did they develop a sudden interest in staying on the right side of the constitutional line -- to the benefit of the innocent as well as the guilty. Wonder of wonders, police departments actually began training officers in how to comply with the Fourth Amendment.

After the Supreme Court imposed the rule on states and cities in 1961, New York's deputy police commissioner acknowledged as much. "Before this, nobody bothered to take out search warrants," he said. "[T]he feeling was, why bother?"

Anyone in charge of maintaining databases of arrest warrants may now be asking the same question. In fact, the court's decision creates an incentive for poor record-keeping. If Herring's warrant had been purged promptly, after all, he could not have been searched, and he would have gotten away with his offenses.

That may seem too high a price to pay. But the real objection is not to the exclusionary rule -- it's to the Fourth Amendment, since if his rights had not been violated, he would have gone free. The tradeoff between catching criminals and protecting privacy is not a daffy invention of activist liberal judges. It was the framers' whole point.

But the Supreme Court says it's fine for the government to profit when it deprives citizens of their constitutional rights through incompetence or sloth. That's like telling teenagers it's OK to get pregnant, as long as it's not on purpose.

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
GREATER VIOLENCE TO THE CONSITUTION I
If Obama went through US Immigration when he returned to Hawaii aged ten, he could only be "naturalised" rather than "natural born," a status he lost when his mother consented to the Indonesian adoption.

Numerous leftards I've spoken to about this have said "so what, the man was elected President."

The Constition is what it is at any point in time. Provision exists for "We the People" to amend the Constitution if it is to be altered.

You can't just pick and choose what to uphold and what to disregard because of expediency.

If you want to ignore the "natural born citizen" requirement for the office of POTUS, what other parts do you want to ignore? The bit about "All men are created equal?" The bit about "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?"

Why has Obama spent $800k + blocking various legal actions asking for documentary proof he is eligible to serve, when all he has to do is table the documents?

On all the evidence a usurper was sworn in yesterday.

GREATER VIOLENCE TO THE CONSITUTION I
Yesterday, Barack Hussein Obama took the Presidential oath of office, swearing to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Yet Obamanation has yet to prove in any forum that he meets the qualification of "natural-born citizen."

If born in Kenya, as his grandmother claims, because Kenya was part of the British Protectorate of Zanzibar in 1961, Obama is a British citizen.

To qualify him as a natural-born US citizen under the existing US law, his mother would have needed to be 19 years of age at the time. She was only 18.

If born in Hawaii as claimed (rather than an overseas birth being registered in Hawaii which was allowable at that time), Obama lost his US citizenship when he has adopted by his mother's second husband, an Indonesian national.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.