Words & Phrases

Apparently, Trump wants to erase the 4th and 2nd Amendments

The rogue Department of Homeland Security, declaring itself to be above mere constitutional restraints, has now murdered two Americans without provocation or excuse, lied about both, and tried to block any independent investigation (excluding even the FBI from the inquiry into Alex Pretti’s execution, suggesting it understands that not even Kash Patel’s bureau will consent to a coverup).

Moreover, DHS has said it need not abide by one of the cornerstones of our democracy, the 4^th Amendment (which sprang from a central grievance against George III’s tyranny), nor does it intend to protect the rightwing’s favorite item in the Bill of Rights, the 2^nd Amendment. In doing so, the Trump regime reveals itself once again as a lawless rogue operation seeking to turn America into a police state.

(Credit: zimmytws, istockphoto)

What 4^th Amendment?

A whistleblower recently revealed an internal Department of Homeland Security memo purporting to assert unlimited authority to enter people’s homes by force to make immigration arrests without a judge’s warrant.

The ludicrous assertion of unfettered power amounts to the repudiation of critical protection against tyrannical rule. The ACLU asserted:

“This is a massive overreach of power by the Trump administration. Due process isn’t optional. It’s a fundamental right.”

Or it used to be a fundamental right, before the Trump regime decided to go all in on the authoritarian project.

The 4^th Amendment states:

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.

The Institute of Justice explains: “Before the American Revolution, officials used general warrants to search and seize colonists’ property at will. These general warrants and ‘writs of assistance” gave officials unfettered power, since they specified neither the places to be searched nor what items to be seized.” That concern motivated the Framers to guarantee the new federal government would not adopt that practice. The principle that judicial warrants are required to arrest someone in their home has been confirmed in multiple Supreme Court opinions.

Once upon a time, self-proclaimed conservatives understood this principle. “The Framers often said that ‘a man’s house is his castle,’ a phrase that had existed in English common law for centuries. …After all, property isn’t truly yours if you fear that government officials may break down the door at any moment.” So much for the assertion of private property as the key to personal liberty, a concept which they frequently invoked as the basis for “stand your ground” protections for a resident to fire on intruders. Now, Republicans — having evidently lost their attachment to the Bill of Rights — remain silent.

Democrats, however, have spoken out forcefully against this constitutional butchery, as Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D- Conn.) did last week during a CNN appearance:

It is a blatant, craven violation of the Fourth Amendment — a bedrock protection for people in the privacy of their homes. Americans should be terrified that this secret ICE policy authorizes agents to break down doors and ransack through their homes, arresting or detaining people without a judicial warrant.

There’s a critical difference between that administrative warrant, which is signed by an ICE officer or a deportation official, and a judicial warrant where a judge and a court have to find that there is a cause — probable cause to enter someone’s home.

Plainly, DHS officials know what they are up to is blatantly unconstitutional. They have kept the memo under wraps, allowing it to be read only in person and conveyed verbally. (The term “evidence of consciousness of guilt” comes to mind.)

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who recently walked back his permission for racially-profiled “Kavanaugh stops,” might be chagrined to know this regime does not put much stock in the 4^th Amendment. If Kavanaugh now concedes that “[t]he Amendment requires that immigration stops must be based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence, stops must be brief, arrests must be based on probable cause, and officers must not employ excessive force,” surely he would be nonplussed that DHS thinks it need not abide by the 4^th Amendment when it comes to Americans’ most sacred territory, one’s own home.

MAGA throws the 2^nd Amendment under the bus

Republicans have long-extolled the inviolability of 2^nd Amendment, pushed for concealed carry laws, and subverted attempts to impose even minimal restrictions on gun owners. They turned Kyle Rittenhouse, an armed protestor who killed two unarmed people in Wisconsin, into a national hero.

Well, that only applies to their own supporters, it seems. FBI director Kash Patel falsely stated on Sunday, “You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines, to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple.” That is a lie. Minnesota has a concealed carry law that gun owners do not lose when they attend a rally. (Perhaps Trump should not have pardoned the armed, violent Jan. 6 protestors; perhaps they should not have lionized Rittenhouse.)

House Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) said on CBS, “In most states, you are not allowed to carry a gun while you’re committing another crime, and interfering with law enforcement is a felony.” Alex Pretti, as multiple witnesses and multiple videos prove, was not interfering with law enforcement. Perhaps the NRA has wasted money all these years backing Scalise and other Republicans to the hilt.

The Wall Street Journal reported on the initial blowback:

“The Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to bear arms while protesting—a right the federal government must not infringe upon,” the advocacy group Gun Owners of America said on Saturday afternoon in response to a Justice Department official’s suggestion that law enforcement officers would likely be justified in shooting anyone who approaches with a gun.

The Response

Democrats need be prepared to call out every U.S. senator and House member on the ballot in November with simple questions: My opponent thinks you have no rights against tyranny, even in your own home. Is that what you want? My opponent thinks law enforcement has impunity to kill licensed gun owners abiding by the law. Is that what you want?

We can see what is going on here. As MAGA slips into kneejerk defense of out-and-out fascism, no Constitutional right is sacred. This is what the “democracy issue” entails: the loss of all personal freedoms to an all-powerful state. Now, Americans must decide whether they want to give up on the 250-year experiment in opposing tyranny. They should not be confused as to where Democrats stand or where Republicans are happy to take us.