Among the most notable lessons of history is that government always -- always -- seeks to amass authority over the governed.

That is true even if the governed, as is the case in the United States, are supposed to be the government; those in power all too easily forget that they are to be the people's servants, not their masters.  That makes it necessary to continually pull oars against the current toward tyranny.

Recognizing the self-aggrandizing nature of government, and nursing fresh memories of the kinds of abuses that governments are prone to affict, the Founding Fathers sought to protect their progeny therefrom by means of the Bill of Rights.  Embodied as they are in the Constitution, they are part of the supreme law of the land and therefore--in theory--immutable.

But just as erosion can diminish even a Rock of Gilbraltar, so have two centuries dulled our general awareness of the Bill of Rights and the reasons for its enactment.  Some of the rights it protects are holding up nicely. Others have a more tenuous grip.

Among the more battered of the first 10 amendments is the Fourth, which specifies that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Government agents seeking access to a person's premises or property are required to obtain warrants.  They can do so only after giving "probable cause," and must specifically describe "the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized."

That would seem to be rather ironclad and clear language.  It would seem to rule out the motion that government agents can surreptitiously nose through a person's belongings without letting that person know such nosing-around is going on.  Certainly it would rule out the seizure of a person's property on the mere suspicion that the person is engaged in wrongdoing.

But such seizures have become common in recent years under notorious racketeering laws that forced individuals to prove their innocence in order to recover their property, as opposed to the government having to prove guilt in order to seize it in the first place.

But columnist Nat Hentoff has unearthed a new threat to Americans' civil liberties in the form of language inserted into the "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act," a bill already passed by the U.S.  Senate.

The bill "would allow federal law-enforcement agents to search your office, home or apartment while you're away, seize or copy things, and not tell you what they've taken for 90 days," Hentoff writes.

In fact, notification could be delayed even longer.  And while you and your lawyers are being kept in the dark, the government can use this evidence to prepare whatever criminal case it might be contemplating against you.  Even if no criminal charges are forthcoming, the fact is that strangers have pawed through your stuff.  How well can you sleep if that's going on?

As has been the case with so many other erosions of search-and-seizure protections, this one is being contemplated in the name of the war on drugs. Illicit drugs, of course, are nasty and destructive, and meth is one of the worst.  But gutting the Fourth Amendment is a high price to pay for combatting meth or any other criminal activity.

The legislation is still pending in the House.  Let's hope sober-minded lawmakers there remove the offending language.  Let's hope they remember their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution -- even the portions thereof that tend to make life a little less convenient for the king's men.
MAP posted-by: Don Beck