President Clinton has asserted the power to conduct warrantless searches, warrantless drug testing of public s

Question

The Clinton administration has repeatedly attempted to play down the significance of the warrant clause. In fact, President Clinton has asserted the power to conduct warrantless searches, warrantless drug testing of public school students, and warrantless wiretapping.

Warrantless "National Security" Searches

The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place.

The warrant clause was designed to give the American people greater security than that afforded by the mere words of politicians. It requires the attorney general, or others, to make a showing of "probable cause" to a magistrate. The proponents of national security searches are hard-pressed to find any support for their position in the text or history of the Constitution. That is why they argue from the "inherent authority" of the Oval Office--a patently circular argument. The scope of such "authority" is of course unbounded in principle. Yet the Clinton Justice Department has said that the warrant clause is fully applicable to murder suspects but not to persons suspected of violating the export control regulations of the federal government. [52] If the Framers had wanted to insert a national security exception to the warrant clause, they would have done so. They did not.

The Clinton administration's national security exception to the warrant clause is nothing more, of course, than an unsupported assertion of power by executive branch officials. The Nixon administration relied on similar constitutional assertions in the 1970s to rationalize "black bag" break-ins to the quarters of its political opponents. [53] The Clinton White House--even after the Filegate scandal--assures Congress, the media, and the general public that it has no intention of abusing this power.

Attorney General Reno has already signed off on the warrantless search of an American home on the basis of the dubious "inherent authority" theory. [54] The actual number of clandestine "national security" searches conducted since 1993 is known only to the White House and senior Justice Department officials.

Warrantless Searches of Public Housing

In the spring of 1994 the Chicago Public Housing Authority responded to gang violence by conducting warrantless "sweeps" of entire apartment buildings. Closets, desks, dressers, kitchen cabinets, and personal effects were examined regardless of whether the police had probable cause to suspect particular residents of any wrongdoing. Some apartments were searched when the residents were not home. Although such searches were supported by the Clinton administration, Federal District Judge Wayne Anderson declared the Chicago sweeps unconstitutional. [55] Judge Anderson found the government's claim of "exigent circumstances" to be exaggerated since all of the sweeps occurred days after the gang-related shootings. He also noted that even in emergency situations, housing officials needed probable cause in order to search specific apartments. Unlike many governmental officials who fear demagogic criticism for being "soft on crime," Judge Anderson stood up for the Fourth Amendment rights of the tenants, noting that he had "sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution" and that he would not "use the power of [his] office to override it, amend it or subvert it." [56]

The White House response was swift. President Clinton publicly ordered Attorney General Reno and HUD secretary Henry Cisneros to find a way to circumvent Judge Anderson's ruling. One month later the president announced a "constitutionally effective way" of searching public housing units. The Clinton administration would now ask tenants to sign lease provisions that would give government agents the power to search their homes without warrants. [57]

The Clinton plan was roundly criticized by lawyers and columnists for giving short shrift to the constitutional rights of the tenants. [58] A New York Times editorial observed that the president had "missed the point" of Judge Anderson's ruling. [59] Harvard law professors Charles Ogletree and Abbe Smith rightly condemned the Clinton proposal as an open invitation to the police to "tear up" the homes of poor people. [60]

Warrantless Drug Testing in Public Schools

The Clinton administration has defended warrantless drug testing programs in the public schools. In March 1995 the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether public school officials could drug test student athletes without a warrant or any articulable suspicion of illegal drug use. The Department of Justice sided with the school authorities, arguing that the privacy rights of individual students were outweighed by the interest of the school in deterring drug use by the student body generally. [61]

Solicitor General Days, arguing for the government, claimed that the school district "could not effectively educate its students unless it undertook suspicionless drug testing as part of a broader drug-prevention program." [62] Days maintained that the Fourth Amendment's requirement of individualized suspicion would "jeopardize" the school's drug program. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter expressed skepticism about that claim and pointed out that if the Supreme Court followed the Justice Department's reasoning, America's public school students might well end up receiving less constitutional protection under the Fourth Amendment than do convicted criminals under correctional supervision. [63]

The Clinton administration supports warrantless drug tests in other contexts as well. Thus, when Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole said, during the 1996 campaign, that he would subject welfare recipients to warrantless, suspicionless drug tests, President Clinton quickly followed suit with his own approval of such an initiative. [64]

Warrantless Wiretapping

The Supreme Court has recognized that electronic surveillance, such as wiretapping and eavesdropping, impinges on the privacy rights of individuals and organizations and is therefore subject to the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause. [65] President Clinton, however, has asked Congress to pass legislation that would give the Federal Bureau of Investigation the power to use "roving wiretaps" without a court order. [66] The president also fought for sweeping legislation that is forcing the telephone industry to make its network more easily accessible to law enforcement wiretaps. Those initiatives have led ACLU officials to describe the Clinton White House as "the most wiretap-friendly administration in history." [67]

It is unclear why the president made warrantless roving wiretaps a priority matter since judges routinely approve wiretap applications by federal prosecutors. According to a 1995 report by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, it had been years since a federal district court turned down a prosecutor's request for a wiretap order. [68] President Clinton is apparently seeking to free his administration from any potential judicial interference with its wiretapping plans. There is a problem, of course, with the power that the president desires: it is precisely the sort of unchecked power that the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause was designed to curb. As the Supreme Court noted in Katz v. United States (1967), the judicial procedure of antecedent justification before a neutral magistrate is a "constitutional precondition," not only to the search of a home, but also to eavesdropping on private conversations within the home. [69]

President Clinton also lobbied for and signed the Orwellian Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is forcing every telephone company in America to retrofit its phone lines and networks so that they will be more accessible to police wiretaps. [70] The cost of that makeover is expected to be several billion dollars. Any communications carrier that fails to meet the technology standards of the attorney general can be fined up to $10,000 per day. The passage of that law prompted Attorney General Reno to marvel at her newly acquired power: "I don't think J. Edgar Hoover would contemplate what we can do today." [71] That is unfortunately true. In the past, law enforcement had to rely on the goodwill and voluntary cooperation of the American people for investigative assistance. That tradition is giving way to a regime of coercive mandates. [72]

Answer 1

Surely you are not telling us that Bush didn't invent the I idea of over stepping his constitutional powers?!?!? And here I thought all presidents before bush were pristine! You have shattered my illusions I going to go lie down now.

Answer 2

I attempt frustrating to be purpose - i don't care as lots approximately what the guideline is, as long simply by fact the comparable rule is utilized to all! i think of a president Hillary could have each and all of the comparable powers a president Bush has. To be somewhat severe (that's the internet, in spite of everything), my answer may be the comparable if Charles Manson have been elected president. i could be unhappy with Hillary having those powers. yet i could could direct my ire to the voters for electing her, not the form which components those powers to each president. EDIT: while you're incredible, then i'm specific which will come out. of course there's a dispute. What did Lincoln and FDR do? i could have an interest. i don't think of they have been conflict criminals.

Answer 3

Do you see what this guy is saying!

Clinton was a Globalist

Bush is a Globalist

All using distraction to take away our Bill of Rights and Constitution!

They are both corrupt

Both Republicans and Democrats

We cannot trust Washington anymore

They keep bringing up Clinton

Well, they are right

We can't trust any of them!

Ron Paul

He voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq War

We have all been saying take America back

In 2008 - Ron Paul will do this

He is a Constitutional fighter!

He is a medical doctor - Healthcare

Think smart

Don't trust either side

Vote Ron Paul

This nightmare will continue if you vote Guiliani, Clinton, Thompson or McCain

They are all false and for Globalists

Vote Ron Paul

Freedom - The Constitution - Bill of Rights - Bring the Troops H ome - Closed Borders - Healthcare - No Taxes - Smaller Government - No Wiretapping - Elimination of Feds - Life as America

If you are for these things - vote Ron Paul

Answer 4

Yeah, but it doesnt matter what Clinton did. Hell, Slick Willie even let OBL live so his billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia wouldnt fall through.

Silly man, dont you know that anything LibDems do is ok, but by God, let a Repub do it (especially Bush) and he is branded as a Fascist Hitler that eats live babies!

A good example is when Clinton had Reno fire ALL Republican Federal attorneys when he came on, but these people scream bloody friggin' murder for Bush having Gonzales fire a handfull of useless baggage later in his Presidency?

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Answer 5

How long did it take you to type all that 20 minutes well here is my answer if your not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. That took me only 2 minutes to type.

Answer 6

This is not a question and your opinion was 3 pages long if typed on paper.

Answer 7

I get it! Bush's defamation of the 4th amendment is justified because of Bill Clinton! Thanks for clearing that up.

As we become a communist state, we can continue to state the name, Bill Clinton, and simply sit back and watch the transformation. Great plan.