Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito Butt Heads Over the Fourth Amendment, Again
Gorsuch advances another property rights theory of the Fourth Amendment that Alito rejects.
By: Damon Root
A major split seems to be developing between conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito over the issue of property rights and the Fourth Amendment.
The most recent evidence of this division came on January 9, when the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Byrd v. United States. This case arose in 2014, when a woman named Natasha Reed rented a car and allowed her fiancé, Terrence Byrd, to drive it in violation of her rental contract, which listed her as the sole authorized driver. When the state police stopped Byrd for a minor traffic infraction, the officer searched the trunk and discovered heroin and several flak jackets. Byrd is fighting to have that evidence thrown out as the fruits of an illegal search.
Highly placed congressional sources are telling Fox News personalities off the record that last month, out of frustration, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to subpoena the communication records of Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee. If true, the threat could constitute an abuse of power or even obstruction, a Fox News legal analyst says.
On Fox Business’ “Making Money” Friday, conservative talk show host David Webb said a “highly placed congressional source” told him that during a January 10, 2018, meeting with FBI Director Christopher Wray, Rosenstein, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes were in attendance, Rosenstein got so irritated by the requests for outstanding documents that he threatened to subpoena Congress and launch an investigation.
Freedom, in the political sense, means exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action and the condition of being free of restraints.
You are born free unless, and until, you choose not to be free by voluntarily accepting such restraints or by allowing such restraints to be imposed on you.
Whether you actually choose to accept the restraints, choose not to oppose such restraints, or choose to believe such restraints are not optional, you have given up your natural born freedom and consented to be bound by the rule of the government; i.e. bondage to a master; i.e. a slave.
If you did not consent, you would be free (dead or alive)