this was already settled by the founding fathers, what we have now is a bunch of harvard and high priced lawyers fast talking their way around their seditious conspiracy, to try to keep from going to prison.
extenuating circumstances such as public emergency extend only to actual public emergencies, such as an actual act of terrorism being knowingly carried out. as per the constitution:
Article. I.
Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
i would go into a long spiel and spellit out however others have already done so much simpler and well worded for shorter answer, i have found this guy covered it short and sweet and since i'm not paid like a lawyer to educate the rest of you, a great many who are not americans, and have no american rights or laws, i feel it's wasted effort on foreigners, and i can lead a horse to water, but i can not make any drink with out breaking the law and hotboxing you for 2 days but mostly because i am not recompensed and linking this site page is easier and faster and hopefully leads many of you to read and generate your own thoughts and opinions and expands a broader horizon of other reasons none of us has thought or added before:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/commbillrights.php
Commentary on the Bill of Rights.
As the United States government continues its war against the nation created in 1779, it has become all too obvious that many Americans, although they will talk about the Bill of Rights, remain unclear as to what it says and what it means. Partly that is due to endless government and corporate media spin, and partly because the language spoken in this nation has changed so much from the time of the writing of the Constitution to the present day, that many people are confused as to what was actually intended. On the occasion of the New York Times publishing an op-ed calling for the abandonment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I offer some clarification.
Amendment IV
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.
This amendment was created by the Founding Fathers as a response to the British practice of random searches of homes, businesses, and persons, again as an attempt to terrorize the colonists into silence and inaction as the Currency Act looted the profit of their labors for the Bank of England. The intention of the Fourth Amendment was to prevent the government from entering your home, place of business, or searching your person simply because they wanted to, or as part of a general campaign of intimidation. Evidence of actual wrong-doing, and not just disagreement with the government, had to be presented by the police to the courts, for a warrant for such invasion to be granted. Although neither the telegraph or telephone existed at the time the Fourth Amendment was ratified, under the 9th Amendment, 4th Amendment protections extend to new technologies. In the present day that includes computers and cell phones, although the government, attempting to justify the NSA spying on all Americans takes the position they do not.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram