"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 Justices claim in a 3-2 Majority Opinion, that the safety of the home residents and the police is more important than the right of residents to protect their home against illegal invasion. The majority believes the place to contest illegal invasion by authorities is the court system. I agree with that part, I just don't agree that people have to let the police in whenever they want to get in.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers did not believe this was an argument that held any water when held up to the Fourth Amendment. Remember, this was written because the English were forcing their soldiers into private homes. They understood what we take for granted; a person's home should be inviolate. Period. No matter what behavior the resident of the home is engaged in, police cannot enter without permission of some sort; an invitation or a warrant. And warrants aren't easy to get due to the Fourth Amendment.
Now, stick with me here. The Fourth Amendment was used as rationale for legalizing abortion, and is frequently used as a defense of abortion. It's the reason minors can get abortions without their parents' knowledge. So, privacy protects people who murder unborn infants, but doesn't allow you to refuse the police entrance into your home. Privacy allows your 13 year-old daughter to go and get an abortion without telling significant adults in her life, but doesn't allow you to keep that same child safe in your home.
I'm sure this ruling will be appealed, and I hope the Supreme Court is still sensible enough to reverse this decision. Re-read that sentence. Because if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn the incredibly wrong ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court, that ruling will soon become the law of the land. I'm not willing to abide by it. Will you?
I have long said I will protect my home with deadly force if I need to. I have that right. I have also said I am willing to join a new revolution. In fact, I already have by being active in Tea Party rallies, working for political candidates I believe in, and working within the system to effect change. The system, however, is swiftly becoming something that true patriots will not be able to work within. I believe our government, from federal to local, is no longer working for the people, but panders exclusively to the groups with money.
It has to change. We need to get rid of activist judges who believe they know better than the Founding Fathers what they meant when the Constitution was drafted. We need to get rid of politicians who do not pay attention to the people of our country, state, and city. We need to understand the fight never ends, and that it is a true fight.
We may lose battles along the way, but the war isn't over by a long shot. We must win the war.