End of the Fourth Amendment

The Indiana Supreme Court recently voted 3-2 that the Fourth Amendment does not exist.

The Fourth Amemdment to the U.S. Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, states:
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.

In case you missed the ruling, the Indiana court held that police officers may enter a residence at any time and for any reason. Now, it seems to me that this rationale clearly violates the language of the Amendment, especially the part where it says: "shall not be violated", but the Court says this ruling will make people safer. If the police act illegally, the judges don't want anyone to get hurt resisting. In their opinion, when you are illegally arrested, you can make bail. After you make bail, you can plunk down a big retainer to get a lawyer and go after those officers. The officers will, of course, cheerfully admit they were acting illegally so that this can be cleared right up. Even judges should know that only the financially well-off will be able to actually do this; the rights of the poor will just go out the window.

These jurists actually seem to think this is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the Fourth Amendment. I like to think they are surely wrong, but with the search provisions of the U.S.A. Patriot Act in place, the Fourth Amendment protections have at best been weakened.

That really isn't the frightening part. The truly frightening part is that the modern day jurist has been trained in liberal law schools where the Constitution is considered a living document with no real meaning- it means only what the court says it means, interpreting it in light of modern society's requirements. The educator John Dewey convinced law schools to throw out Blackstone as the foundation of legal education. In its place they put the Socratic method, which teaches students that the law is not what legislators write, which we the people (the great unwashed) think of as "Laws". Instead, in the opinion of law school professors, "the law" is really whatever the courts decide. Legislated "Laws" seem to serve only as guidelines. That leads us into the liberal minefield of relative truth, and to court decisions such as this one, which frankly seem to border on seditious. Perhaps, if we want to get the courts back to some verisimilitude of what they were when America was founded, it's time to give up on Dewey's experiment and put Blackstone back in school.