Early in my blogging career, I lamented the moribund state of the Bill of Rights. I haven't had much reason to change the views I expressed then, but I did notice two things this morning...
First, Charles Hill points to Tamara K.'s "Bill of Rights for the 21st Century," and I like it:
You have the right to freedom of certain approved speech, at certain times that aren't too near elections. There is freedom of the press, as long as certain things aren't printed, and the internet is understood to not be "the press." And please understand that you are being monitored so that certain things you say or print may be being gathered as evidence just in case you are ever charged with anything down the road.You have the right to keep some arms, as long as they are a flavor the government approves of, and in some places you may not keep arms of any kind. You may bear these arms in the field and forest if you have paid money to the government. You may bear them on a licensed shooting range. You may bear them in public in some locales only if you have been photographed, fingerprinted, investigated and taxed. In many locales you may not bear arms even then.
You have the right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects unless a paid informant has suggested that you may have something the government doesn't want you to have, or Fluffy the Uberhund alerts on your luggage, or you fit a certain profile, or a policeman asks you.
You cannot be forced to be a witness against yourself, except with recordings of your voice, and various samples of your breath, bodily fluids, and small bits of flesh.
Your property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation, unless it'd be a swell place for a strip mall, or the cops need a new armoured car.
Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, unless one considers being GPS/radio-tagged like a migrating seal to be cruel and unusual.
I especially like Tamara's rewrite of the Fourth Amendment, which is worth repeating here:
You have the right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects unless a paid informant has suggested that you may have something the government doesn't want you to have, or Fluffy the Uberhund alerts on your luggage, or you fit a certain profile, or a policeman asks you.
She's right on about Fluffy the Uberhund: I don't think I've ever seen a police dog, anywhere, that was very well-behaved. Think about it: don't cops normally tell citizens not to approach their K-9 partners? Why might that be? Jeez, I grew up with dogs, particularly with various flavors of German shepherd, and my dogs never bit anyone, nor did I ever worry about anyone approaching them. I have a German shepherd/Rottweiler mix, a four-year old named Athena, and you can approach her, too.
Two police dog incidents stand out in my memory: I was at a Marine Corps Reserve site in Tampa, Florida, where some law-enforcement type (Hillsborough County sheriff's deputy, I think) gave a demonstration of what his dog could do. And it was readily apparent what that dog could do: any damn thing he wanted. Fluffy was all over the place while his "handler" kept repeating "He'll do whatever I say." Yeah: unless you say "sit" or "stay" or "stop jumping, Fluffy." I laughed my ass off at this "demonstration."
The other Fluffy I saw was at Sky Harbor airport in Phoenix, Arizona, this past July. I didn't notice what rank his handler wore, but whatever it was, the "handler," once again, was clearly junior and subordinate to Fluffy, who pulled him along seemingly without effort. Was Fluffy a bomb-sniffing dog? Was he or she a drug-sniffing dog? I don't know. But I walk my two, untrained, dogs together, with far less trouble than this guy was having with his canine boss partner.
On a lighter note, Vin Suprynowicz this morning mentions a "Fourth Amendment Thong," which bears a legend reading "I Consent to This Search." Mmmm...