Warrantless Searches of Electronic Devices Ruled Constitutional

Do you believe, under the legal framework of the United States, that the people who guard the imaginary lines we refer to as borders should require a warrant to search your electronic devices? According to a United States District Judge a warrant is not necessary under such circumstances:

NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. border agents should have the authority to search laptop computers carried by news photographers and other travelers at international border crossings without reasonable suspicion, a federal judge in Brooklyn ruled Friday.

In a written decision, U.S. District Judge Edward Korman granted a government motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by civil rights attorneys that claimed the practice was unconstitutional and sought to have it halted.

Korman found that the plaintiffs hadn’t shown they suffered injury that gave them standing to bring the suit. He also cited previous rulings finding that the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches doesn’t apply to the government’s efforts to secure international borders from outside threats.

It’s hard to rule something unconstitutional when it is constitutional under the language of the Constitution. According to the Constitution:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

So the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction with the exception of restrictions placed on it by Congress. As Congress has, as far as I know, made no restrictions against the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction it has the ultimate say on whether or not something is lawful in the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless searches on the imaginary lines that surround this country aren’t violations of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore it’s pretty easy to claim any warrantless search within the boundaries of said imaginary lines are constitutional according to the Constitution.

This isn’t a demonstration of the Constitution being violated but of how vaguely worded the Constitution really is. The Constitution’s predecessor, the Articles of Confederation, didn’t grant the federal government much power and made its existence dependent on the charity of the individual states. Hoping to establish a strong federal government, advocates of the Constitution wanted the federal government to have the power to tax and to rule in court decisions. It really was a document written to take power from the individual states. As a result we now live in a society where the Bill of Rights are easily violated without violating the Constitution itself. So long as the Supreme Court says an act isn’t a violation of the Bill of Rights and Congress hasn’t placed any restrictions on the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction it can legally do whatever the fuck it wants.