Proposed amendment Essay Example for Free

Proposed amendment Essay Brief Presentation of Issue The 9/11 tragedy has led the US Federal Government to enact laws of national security that crosses all boarders. On October 2001, the US Congress has passed into law the US Patriot Act which formulates homeland security measures and combating burdens of the State on vulnerabilities and risks of present and future terrorist threat. The US Patriot Act of 2001 was the first enacted law that legally addresses the strong counter-terrorism measures of the US government that empowers all rules and regulations of the state’s homeland security. All US government agencies were enjoined to formulate a national and international operating guidelines relating to addressing a firmer global counter-terrorism policies and strategic sharing of burdens of information with allied international governments. The timeline of enforcement of the US Patriot Act of 2001 has accounted serious human errors in the conduct of enforcement to which the standard operating procedures constituted by the rules of court have been summarily neglected and to the point of being grossly deviated, specifically in serving search and arrest warrants that is likewise violating the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The issue of encroachment of the rules of court in issuance of search and arrest warrant has become a constitutional concern of the US Congress and the United Nation’s Commission on Human Rights (Leggiere, P. 2004). Framing of An Amendment to Search and Seizure Order The above cited issues has come the proposal to supplement the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights that constitutes the provision on search and seizure. The 4th Amendment may be therefore supplemented with an enabling clause as an Amendment on specific provision that states: â€Å"Constitutional liabilities in the issuance of search and seizure order. † A Brief Resolution of the Proposed Amendment The following proposed resolution formulates and creates the enabling clause of the Amendment: â€Å"Whereas, be it known that the facade of human error in the conduct of search and seizure may infringe the performance and call of duty in safeguarding the national security and protecting the lives of citizenry, and may violate the civil and constitutional rights of every citizens of the state and the immigrants;† â€Å"Whereas, be it further known that deviation and neglect in issuing search and seizure order may not constitutionally uphold the enforcement of such law and jeopardize the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights;† â€Å"Be it resolved, as it is hereby resolve that the proposed amendment shall state the provision of Constitutional liabilities in the issuance of search and seizure order,† that shall egally address the unauthorized and illegal search and seizure prior to the proceedings of proper and appropriate Court of laws. † Thus, the Amendment on â€Å"Constitutional liabilities in the issuance of search and seizure order† seeks to uphold the constitutional right of every state citizen and immigrants and deterrence to commission of human error of conducting authorities. Exploratory Issues to the Amendment The â€Å"constitutional liabilities in the issuance of search and seizure order† emanates an action that supplant the human error, as may be singled out in the performance and call of duty, and the flaws of government directives, authorization and function that engages constitutional liabilities in the conduct of search and seizure. Given the fact that despite the continuing violation of human rights, the human error and flaws of authorities are not given due response by the Court of law due to the absence of fundamental and legal precedents that shall interpret the violation. Likewise, the human error itself defeats 6th Amendment of the Bill of Rights wherein the fair trial composes the right of a person to be served with proper procedure prior to prosecution. To cite a relative incident, we can quote the disclosure of Phil Leggiere (2004) who stated in his investigative article, that: â€Å" the US Congress and Senate approve the Military Commissions Act, which authorizes torture and strips non-US citizen detainees (suspected of terrorist ties) of the right of habeas corpus—which includes formal charges, counsel and hearings—and also empowers the US president at his discretion to declare US citizens as enemy combatants and subject to detention without charge or due process†. The above cited disclosure further stated that, in so far as the US Court of law is concerned, the constitutional liability of the US government authority that has been directly involved is still pending for court interpretation and documentation of circumstantial facts. Obviously, the violation boils down to the presumed call of duty and in the name of national security to which the constitutional liability is impeded to surface (Leggiere 2004). Pros and Cons Pros. The primary advantage of adopting the proposed Amendment would enable a legal precedent that shall formally address the constitutional liability of the human error and the fine tuning of the US government authorities in the conduct of enforcement. The Court of law shall then recognize the pleadings of human right violations from the circumstance of complex conduct of search and seizure. The parliamentary procedure and judicial process may use the proposed Amendment as an examining tool on the extent and scope of violations wherein qualification and determination of offense shall be dealt with both civil and criminal punishment. Above all the benefits of the proposed Amendment is the articulation and emphasis of the search and seizure application to which the people, and specifically the victims of mistaken identity, shall be safeguarded from harm of circumstantial neglect, denial and justification of acquiring national security measures. Cons What could be claimed as a disadvantage upon the passage of the proposed Amendment is the dysfunction in covert and strategic operation in homeland security management. The dysfunction could be a vague issue but could be a burden in gathering of intelligence information for suspected terrorists and enemies of the state. However, in today’s application of advanced cyber-technologies, the US authorities may ultimately resort and rely on such expensive tools that may be useful enough for intelligence reconnaissance. Although it is still a common knowledge and understanding that the CIA still rely on the so-called open-source information relative to legal, Para-legal and covert extraction (Elsea, J. K. 2004). At this point of view, the covert extraction of information from sources (which could have been a result of torture), would be employed by the proposed Amendment. In which case, expose’ of information in the open court may bring vulnerability of covert operation. However, in that regard, there may be a venue to contain the inquiry on constitutional liabilities. Conclusion The Bill of Rights represents the people itself in the annals of democratic fundamentals. It is where the Constitution is made to uphold the moral virtues of citizenry and the government that represent them. Without the moral virtues of a constitution, a volatile and fragile democracy negates the human rights. It is therefore a moral obligation of every citizen in various governments to protect and lead into vanguard the proliferation of moral ascendancy for their rights above all the creation of the fundamental law of the land. References American Homepage. The Bill of Rights. Retrieved February 14, 2008 from http://ahp. gatech. edu/bill_of_rights_1789. html. Bruns, R. A. (1986). A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the United States Constitution. National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives Trust Fund Board, Washington, DC. Retrieved February 14, 2008 from http://www. archives. gov/national-archives- experience/charters/print_friendly. html? page=constitution_history_content. htmltitle=NARA%20%7C%20The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United%20States%3A%20A%20History. Human Rights Watch (2004). Immigrants’ Rights under Attack in House Bill (H. R. 10). Retrieved February 14, 2008 from http://www. hrw. org/english/docs/2004/10/06/usdom9469. htm. Jennifer K. Elsea, J. K.(2004). U. S. Treatment of Prisoners in Iraq: Selected Legal Issues. CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved February 14, 2008 from http://www. us. gov/RL32395/pdf. Leggiere, P. (2004). Bill of Rights Under Bush: A Timeline. Mondo Globo Alpha. Retrieved February 14, 2008 from http://mondoglobo. ning. com/group/questionauthority/forum/topic/show? id=1509099%3ATopic%3A2937. Rapczynski, J. (2000). Search and Seizure. Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute. Retrieved February 14, 2008 from http://www. yale. edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2000/2/00. 02. 04. x. html. Rodley, N. S. (1999). The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law. Oxford Press, 2nd Edition. Retrieved February 14, 2008 from http://books. google. com/books? id=pOpdOyPn36ECpg=PA3lpg=PA3dq=protocol+on+treatment+of+war+prisonerssource=webots=vmMso_Qs-3sig=C2BMjcTvmC. Yale University (2007). 1996-2007: The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. The Lillian Goldman Law Library in Memory of Sol Goldman, 127 Wall Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06520. Retrieved February 14, 2008 from http://www. yale. edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03. htm.