Source: Supreme Court [PDF]
quote: So many times when a discussion of Constitutional rights comes up (boy we've had a lot of those lately) someone will make a comment like "Well the Constitution doesn't say anything about the Internet, so we have no rights to use it!". Or something similar. That is the wrong way to view the Constitution.The highlighted statements from the judge in the article is the perfect way to interpret the Constitution. Just because the Founders didn't specifically mention vehicles or GPS devices, doesn't mean the Government can do whatever the hell it wants. The intent of the Constitution and the Amendments were to defend our rights FROM the Government. Not put us in a subservient role TO the Government from which all our rights and freedoms come down to nothing more than a literal translation of the document.So often the lawmakers view the Constitution as nothing more than a barrier for which they have to find loopholes in to do whatever the hell they want to us. That is wrong and I'm relieved beyond words to see that, at least some judges, still care about the reason it was written in the first place.
quote: See I told you not to lose hope, Reclaimer! ;)
quote: Maybe the 9-0 decision was because Obama told his Federal attorneys, that were defending the governments prior positions, to go ahead and lose this one. A similar situation arose when Obama had to defend DOMA. Because DOMA was a federal law the Obama administration legally had to defend it. The federal 'effort' was pretty weak because they didn't really support the law. I imagine the same thing happened here.
quote: And Jason's headline was also completely inaccurate.