 Check out the bookstore at IRBS.com |
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
From: Richard T. Perry (flinthills.com!perryrt)
Date: Thu May 16 1996 - 16:11:18 EDT
>Perhaps "lost a basic right" is not quite right. Isn't the search and
>seizure power of the C.G. quite old?
At an absolute minimum, they date from - I should think - the Prohibition
Era. As a historical matter, isn't the CG decended from the Revenue Cutter
Service (which had the prime mission of making customs inspections and
halting smuggling?)
>As for teh 4th amendment of the Constitution applying in this case, I
>believe the intent was that it apply to homes on land, the issue at sea
>was the British Navy removing seamen from ships whom they thought should
>be serving on their own.
Uh... I believe this was the basis for the war of 1812 (among other
things).Wasn't the Constitutional Convention in 1787? So the Bill of Rights
(and the 4th amendment, in particular) as ratified in 1791, would have been
written prior to the events you discuss.
Or do I have my history reversed?
As for this particular issue, I fail to see how the 4th amendment
actually applies at sea. Of course the press was a fact of life in those
days for any seaman, but the issue in that case was one of definition under
law. British law at the time defined a British subject as one who had been
born under British rule, or of British parents. Therefore, pretty much every
man jack aboard the American-flagged sailing vessels was subject to the
British press (according to British law, as long as their parents were born
prior to 1776. Not that your average British frigate captain was picky...).
British vessels in the Napoleonic era were chronically short of trained
seamen AND THEY HAD BIG GUNS... (come to think of it, the CO on my SSN would
have killed for a few more trained sailors, too...), so they would stop
American fishermen and merchant vessels, and take what (whom) they wanted.
It was pefectly legal, by _their_ rules. Of course, not by ours. So we went
to war. Of course, we got our collective butts kicked, most of the time, but
it worked out all right in the end.
While there were inspections by Royal tax collectors of merchant
vessels prior to the Revolution, these were hardly search or seizure of
personal effects. The point to all this is simply that I don't believe that
"framer's intent" can be assumed with respect to the 4th amendment in the
maritime setting.
However, I will do some research on the subject and get back to you. Please
feel free to suggest reading material for me.
Regards,
R. T. Perry
PerryRT-flinthills.com
KF4BAL
GMOO
- The world is divided into two sorts of people: Those who own HP's and
those that yell "HEY! Where's the equals sign!"
|