DHS Secretary doesn’t understand the 4th Amendment

I’ve covered this before but, again, the DHS Secretary is wrong. Jeh Johnson claims during the 2015 RSA security conference that law enforcement needs access to encrypted data for public safety reasons, but he fails to consider that the Bill of Rights addresses this issue already. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” Courts have also ruled that this includes a variety of electronic communications. Back in 2009 Missouri also passed a Constitutional amendment to affirm the electronic right to privacy.

Why should the government be given basically unrestricted access to our personal belongings? The 4th Amendment already permits the issuance of warrants for searching ones belongings, but it seems DHS wants to eliminate that step. If communication is encrypted then it is up to the government to find another way. That is the nature of how our government is supposed to work. We should not be required to give up our privacy. Benjamin Franklin once made a statement along the lines of “He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.” I would argue that without knowing the future, this is the exact type of situation Franklin was referring to.

(h/t The Blaze)

No on Loretta Lynch

This week the US Senate is expected to vote on Loretta Lynch for US Attorney General. Her confirmation has been delayed for about five months after Democrats did not confirm her and Mitch McConnell refused to proceed with her confirmation until the passage of an anti-trafficking bill.

I am against her nomination for one reason. She supports the Obama and Eric Holder policies on illegal immigration. (The Blaze) During her confirmation hearings she did seem to claim many of the same stances that I do regarding same-sex marriage, marijuana, etc), however, she based on those stances on existing Department of Justice policies and not on Constitutional grounds. That implies that her stance will change if the policy changes, which likely would if Obama were to direct her to make such changes.

Further, if she supports the current illegal immigration policies then she supports violating the law and Constitution. I want an an Attorney General who will enforce the laws that exist and will encourage Congress to make appropriate changes to laws he or she believes should be changed. I do not want an Attorney General that will make up the rules as they go along as Obama and Holder have.

I encourage my Senators to vote against Loretta Lynch, but I don’t expect either of them to. Claire McCaskill is almost guaranteed to vote for the confirmation given she solely plays politics and could care less about what confirmation would mean for the enforcement of the laws. Roy Blunt is likely vote with the Republicans, but given he is nearly a Democrat himself it wouldn’t surprise me if he were to vote for her confirmation. Neither of them will vote in support of the rule of law and the Constitution.