Categories
Constitutional Democracy Uncategorized

The Fourth Amendment

To address Trump’s “ill-conceived and incompetently-implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children.”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, FRED BIERY wrote in his January 31, 2026, order:

“And then there is that pesky inconvenience called the Fourth Amendment:

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 persons or things to be seized.”

U.S. CONST. amend. IV.

“Civics lesson to the government: Administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster. That is called the fox guarding the henhouse. The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.”

The complete Order.

You can read the complete text of the United States Constitution at the American Bar Association web page.

Categories
Constitutional Democracy

Impeachment of Donald Trump

July 2, 2024, UPDATE:

Opinion: We should all dissent from the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, and not respectfully

This article below is from the Opinion section of the Los Angeles Times, July 1, 2024.  It was written by the Dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law.  

“As Justice Sonia Sotomayor powerfully said in her dissent in Trump vs. United States, the Supreme Court on Monday made ‘a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.’ In a 6-3 decision, the six Republican-appointed justices handed a stunning victory to Donald Trump in broadly defining the scope of absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.

Roberts concluded his opinion by rightly saying: ‘This case poses a question of lasting significance.’ Unfortunately, the court gave an answer to that question that undermines the rule of law and creates a serious future threat to our democracy in placing the president largely above the law.”

Erwin Chemerinsky is a contributing writer to Opinion and the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law.

January 9, 2020, UPDATE:

On December 18, 2019, The United States House of Representatives voted to Impeach Donald Trump, HR RES 755. “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” United States Constitution Article I Section 2 clause 5. “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.

Categories
Constitutional Democracy

William Barr and SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE REPORT

July 2, 2024, Update:

Opinion: We should all dissent from the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, and not respectfully

This article below is from the Opinion section of the Los Angeles Times, July 1, 2024.  It was written by the Dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law.  

“As Justice Sonia Sotomayor powerfully said in her dissent in Trump vs. United States, the Supreme Court on Monday made ‘a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.’ In a 6-3 decision, the six Republican-appointed justices handed a stunning victory to Donald Trump in broadly defining the scope of absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.

Roberts concluded his opinion by rightly saying: ‘This case poses a question of lasting significance.’ Unfortunately, the court gave an answer to that question that undermines the rule of law and creates a serious future threat to our democracy in placing the president largely above the law.”

Erwin Chemerinsky is a contributing writer to Opinion and the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law.

August 8, 2020, Update:

In William’s Barr’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on July 28, 2020, he stated “Given our history, it’s understandable that among black Americans, there’s some ambivalence and often distrust toward the police. Until just the last 50 years ago or so, our laws and our institutions were explicitly racist, explicitly discriminatory.”  He denied there is systematic racism in law enforcement.