I was reading the constitution the other day, and the Forth Amendment peaked my interest. A lot of people have long said that Forth Amendment protects individuals from the right to be searched by government without a search warrant. But that’s not exactly what the text says …
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.
Maybe the founding fathers were instead implying that the purpose of the constitution was to protect the government from “ unreasonable searches and seizures” by individual citizens. After all, it’s only logical that the government would want to protect its assets from theft from the public. Government property after all belongs to the government, which represents all the people.
Likewise, one could argue that the government felt it necessary to restrict what kind of questions could be asked of it for national security and other purposes. Could “unreasonable searches” refer to public use of Freedom of Information laws? Maybe the founding fathers were just implementing an early standard to limit use of Freedom of Information, to ensure the public only had limited knowledge of what the government’s actual operations were. Maybe a citizen should be required to get a search warrant prior to getting even the most basic information on how government works. This would help protect national security.
After all, we do refer to prosecutors as “the people” in court cases, so there is a reason to believe that the founding fathers were actually referring to the government, and not individuals in drafting the Fourth Amendment. Likewise, maybe the people the Constitution was referring into First Amendment was the government and the government press, and not private citizens. To say nothing of the Second Amendment, etc.
While it seems unlikely that such an intent could be put in a document called the Bill of Rights, it’s really a bit hard to know for sure. Indeed, there are some people who may have some beliefs that the Fourth Amendment is actually a collective right, and only limits the citizen’s access to their government.
Here is what the preamble to the Bill of Rights says:
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Still, people are free to believe what they believe about the Constitution. Ultimately though, the Courts, especially the Supreme Court will decide what the document really means.
A couple of years back, I decided to apply for Food Stamps and Welfare benefits, by using a free online website, provided by the state. Not because I was hungry or in need of assistance, but because I figured it would be interesting to see if there was any social services programs I could receive, and use for my benefit. I figured the form was free, and it didn’t obligate me to anything. I pay a lot in taxes, and it seemed only right that if I was eligible for a service, I should get my money’s worth.
Obviously, after I applied, I was promptly turned down. It said my income was well above the level allowed for a variety of social services. Despite the fact I pay a lot in taxes, I can’t get food stamps or other forms of social assistance that many poorer people can get. It’s not like I have a lot of extra money at the end of the month, and it really isn’t fair that some people, who are poor, can get government assistance that I am not allowed to get.
Why do some people get food stamps and government assistance, while hard-working people don’t get any assistance? They could transform these programs to be a basic benefit for all Americans. Why shouldn’t everyone get food stamps, especially if the they pay into the program? There are some months where that extra money — specifically earmarked to buy healthy food would be helpful.
I don’t particularly like having the government deciding how I should spend my money, but it would be a good incentive if the government gave everyone a few bucks every week to buy healthy food. Not everyone would take advantage of it, but it would give an incentive for eating healthy.
Yesterday, when you opened Twitter and Facebook up, it seemed like one post or another was calling for people to “do something” about the “menace of guns” in our country, or improve the accessibility of mental health in our county.
I don’t oppose some of the those suggestions. Indeed, certainly we could probably do more ensure affordable and stigma free counseling was available to all. The President’s health law that passed in 2009, with Mental Health parity and a requirement for all to subscribe to a basic health care plan.
We could also consider some gun control restrictions — but the restrictions have to be reasonable in effort, and need to provide a very high standard against someone owning or possessing a firearm. It would have to require a judge, a jury, and a beyond reasonable doubt standard — as does any restriction of a constitutional right. We can’t just have government officials, on a whim, restricting people’s rights, because they don’t like their politics.
We also can’t just start stigmatizing or persecuting individuals just because we don’t like their views. We saw too much of that after September 11th. Rather then embracing conformity, we should embrace diversity, and encourage people of diverse backgrounds to be active and engaged members of our society. We have to stand up against political persecution. They may not be coming after you today, but your in line next.
What I fear, and already see is the worst coming out of people. People want to do something — regardless of what it means for our civil liberties. They want to stop violence, even if they really can not do anything. Even if it means hurting regular folks, they feel they must do something. This is plain scary.
Day is Done – Peter, Paul and Mary.
I think it’s time to step back, and put an end to this madness — the madness of saying we must do something now.
One thing that concerns me is the lack of transparency for all not-for-profit organizations that are involved in influencing government polic or representing themselves in front of government agencies.
While all not-for-profit organizations must disclose how they spend their money, at least on an yearly bases on publically avaliable IRS Form 901, they do not have to disclose individual donors, or the amount each donor gives. In many cases, through the advocacy and other works of not-for-profits, substantial government lobbying and political influence is given by the organization, yet few actually know who is funding the organization, or what the true rational for the organization’s actions.
If persons are afraid to give to not-for-profit organizations, for fear of disclosure, then they should not give. Not all not-for-profit organizations serve the public interest, as many spend a substantial amount of their funds advocate for policies that are highly detrimental to the public interest. Likewise, there should be public pressure on not-for-profit organizations avoid taking donations from corrupting sources of funds.
A great deal of advocacy on behalf of major corporations takes on behalf of citizens groups. Many cases, grass roots efforts are amplified by large corporate donations, but nobody really knows where the money comes from, except that they report large donations as being a key to sustaining their organization. For sake of openess, all not-for-profit organizations should have to disclose all donations and where they came from.
There are something like 965 towns, cities, and villages in NY State, along with 64 counties. All of them have elected officials, and civil servants providing mostly state and federally mandated services.
The question is why do we even have local government anymore?
Nobody questions that the services of counties and towns are important, but in many cases they duplicate what the state currently does. Few governing decisions are made locally anymore. Most local government decisions are made with significant state involvement or influence, in the form of state regulations, state permitting, or in many cases actual laws passed by the state.
Local governments have a lot less freedom to make decisions that many pretend. All are highly dependent on state to go along with them. Most so-called local decisions are essentially decided at the state level. Local governments like to pretend they have significant control and power, but the reality is as creatures of state, and due to economic competition by surrounding towns, they are essentially powerless to decide their futures.
Local government is an idiom of an earlier era before modern communication techology, and modern transportation. Local government is from an era of horse and buggies. Local government tends to be stocked with well-connected political families and patronage. Local government tends to be totally ineffective, in an era when regional and indeed nationwide planning is needed, when any local decision can have vast impacts far beyond it’s own borders.
In a modern technocratic era, local decision making makes little sense, and squanders important public resources.
There are two categories of state governments as it relates to local governments:
Home Rule: States that give local governments wide latitude to decide which policies are appropriate for their communities
Dillon’s Rule: States that give limited powers to local government to make decide which policies are appropriate for their communities
No states fall clearly in on category or another as it’s more of a continuum then definite categories. Indeed, when states choose how much to empower local governments they must consider a variety of factors such as:
Impact of one town or city’s decisions on surrounding communities
Citizens that travel through one community or reside their temporarily for work, recreation, or other activities, but due to lack residency have no voice in that government
Involvement and awareness of a community’s citizens in governments
Fairness between wealthier and poorer communities
State-wide goals for various programs
Certainly some things really ought to be decided on a local level, under Home Rule, by an informed citizens and their representatives:
The rate of property taxation and structure of fees paid exclusively by local residents and businesses
The level of government services provided to local citizens and businesses
The design and management of local service roads and streets
The creation of local laws and policies, as long as much local laws and policies are made clear to visitors using signs or other documentation
On the other hand, there is a compelling case to reserve some powers to states under Dillion’s Rule to ensure fairness both to local residents and more importantly, largely voiceless visitors to a community.
A state bill of rights must exist to ensure that local governments both treat their citizens fairly, and most importantly visitors to the community fairly
Local laws need to consistent enough so that visitors know what to reasonably expect when visit a community and require
Inter-community highways need to be regulated by the state to promote the quick and convenient movement of goods and people.
Could 15 minutes a month make a big difference in how your government is run and allow you to make informed decisions about government policies? With New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), and a quick email off to your government officials, you can make a big difference.
Under Article 6 of the Public Officers Law, any person can request almost any government document using a quick email to the Records Access Officer that every state agency and subdivision such as counties, cities, towns, public authorities, public corporations, and school boards keep. You can request meeting agendas, meeting notes, email sent from government accounts, studies, maps, word documents, GIS Shapefiles, databases. While there are some exceptions to this law, the reality is most government documents are public property, and can be received through FOIL.
To send a FOIL request, you simply need to …
1) Figure out what your interested in. It helps to know what format the records are stored in, such as Word Processor Documents, Spreadsheets, Email, Database, GIS Shapefile, PDF. You also should try to make the best guess where the data is from, and describe it as possible. You have to accept records in whatever format stored by the agency as they are not required to convert or summarize the record, meaning you need to accurately request what they have or risk being denied access.
2) Go to agency’s website your are interested in, and try to find the Records Access Officer or FOIL request officer or other email. Typically emailing the highest level official in the agency is acceptable if no FOIL information is listed.
3) While not every agency accepts emails, but any that has a capacity to e-mail must accept requests in that format.
4) Write a very quick and simple email to the agency saying:
Dear Records Access Officer:
Under Article 6 of the Public Officers Law (NY Freedom of Information Law), I am requesting the following records:
Any and all emails sent from Commissioner John Smith jsmith@example.state.ny.us from April 1, 2011 through May 1, 2011 with the words “solid waste management” in the body of the email.
The Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, relating to revenue received through recycling programs. I am requesting the April 2011 numbers, as prepared by Solid Waste Specialist Deborah Smith.
Thank you. If you have any questions or need clarification, please email me at joe@example.com.
It’s that easy. You will get a receipt of your request within 5 days. Within 35 days, you will receive the requested documents or reasons for denial of such requests under the limited exceptions of NY Freedom of Information Act. You have the right to appeal such a denial to the records appeal officer, which you should be notified of whom it is when such information is denied. The Committee on Open Government offers advisory opinions to help you understand the law, and cite case law in your response.
I really encourage you to get into the practice of regularly writing FOIL requests. With e-mail it’s easy, and it keeps your elected officials and public servants on their toes. Receiving even one request for information perks up their ears, and more requests makes them realize that the public is keeping a watchful eye over them. Moreover, the records you will receive are both interesting and informative, and allow you to make better comment over public policies in the future.
You can be the hero that saves democracy and get lots of fun government documents for free to your email!
