I'd like to hear this, my week hasn't been so great, I could use a laugh.
use Mich. dept. of police vs. Sitz as an example. This case concerned DUI checkpoints against the 4th Amendment.
the 4th Amendment reads - "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."
so using the text of the 4th Amendment, this would make DUI checkpoints unconstitutional since simply driving down the highway offers no reasonable suspicion for police to stop a vehicle. This is spelled out in numerous court cases that police are not allowed to stop a vehicle without reasonable suspicion that the driver has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime.
The US Supreme court, in the opinion cited above, wrote that even though DUI checkpoints do violate the 4th Amendment, that the governments interest in stopping drunk driving was substantial enough to meet a reasonable search and seizure, provided the checkpoints meet certain criteria.
thus DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional, but legal because the courts said so.
another example would be the federal governments prohibition of marijuana possession. The framers of the constitution gave zero power to the central government, in any portion of the constitution, that allowed them to prohibit possession of anything, yet by using a bunch of legalese and word speak, the courts allowed that prohibition by simply stating that even possession without traffic in interstate or intrastate commerce, affected that commerce. so prohibiting possession of an item is unconstitutional, but legal.
