I am an American, a regular issue third generation grandson of immigrants. I am, on balance, a very ordinary working citizen. The only minor difference between myself and others is that I travel a bit in my work and have had the opportunity to observe other countries and how they work or don't work. Like most Americans, I have long since accepted the strength of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights as being inviolate. It clearly makes us different than other nations. I'm proud of that. Alterations to these documents are few and far between. They are hard to come by and require diligent work by the Congress and the Law to make even the smallest changes. Well, that is what I used to think. I don't now. Some “changes” aren't really actual additions, deletions or interpretations to the documents but simply the Federal Judiciary choosing not to follow the Constitution on particular issues. This is the case with Article IV of The Bill of Rights. Article IV states in plain and simple English that citizens of the United States of America do not have to suffer “search and seizure” unless there is “probable cause.” The people are therefore supposed to be protected from abuse by authority. That's it. It's simple. We have it on paper; most nations on earth do not.
I like to mention a very brief history of how it all started. Back when we were a British colony and under the crown of George III our people suffered the infuriating indignity of being stopped and searched at will. Doors were kicked in, residents beaten, letters and books seized and so on. Our forefathers got heartily sick of it. Never again. The idea of individual rights of a free person took hold for the first time. Unfamiliar words like “rights, “inalienable” and “self-evident” came into use for the ordinary citizen. It was a bold move in a bold time. We all know what happened. The British soon had a wild cat by the tail. “Search and Seizure” was only one of many fiery issues that led to a revolution and the independence we all cherish. Finally, at long last, in America, government would be under control.
Times have changed. To my surprise, the American people of the late 20th Century and especially the rich and powerful, have in great part and with the questionable guidance of the Federal Judiciary come to view the “search and seizure without probable cause” issue of Article IV of the Bill of Rights as a “trivial inconvenience.” The word “inconvenient” is crucial to our understanding of what is happening. To look at it another way, the protection of the rights of the people under Article IV has proven to be “awkward” in that it seems to effectively frustrate the expansion of governmental power and supposedly provides haven to law breakers. It is apparent that the majority of America's citizens are to suffer so that the government can get easily to the criminal few.
So, how should we feel about law, logic and convenience? It is only natural and logical to want to stop or alleviate evil deeds in a civilized society. What our forefathers knew, however, is that we as a people had to make a daring historical stand; we had to assume—by law—that all people would be assumed innocent until proven guilty. This was, at the time, outrageous revolutionary rhetoric. The sort of heady stuff that in other nations resulted in being imprisoned or hanged. This previously unthinkable notion of “innocent until proven guilty” tied in with the previously unthinkable laws against “search and seizure.” Our Bill of Rights says you cannot search and seize anything unless you have a very good reason: “probable cause.” And we assume innocence!! This was blasphemy to the kings and aristocracy of Europe. America was thoroughly despised. The idea that certain basic rights of all the people actually preceded the power of authority was bestial and disgusting. Today, to we Americans, it sounds so obviously fair and just. But! Please note! It was and is not perfectly just. The Bill of Rights, for example, is tediously “inconvenient” and troublesome to the authorities carrying out what at times seems to be the obvious and quick route to justice. It was, I hasten to add, designed to do just that; to be bloody inconvenient and time consuming. Why? For our protection. Slick, clean and effective laws lead to slick, clean and effective authoritarian control.
This is where you, the present day citizen, come in. You have to decide if you want everyone to be treated as a “possible felon” for the convenience of the authorities or, if you think everyone—that means each of you—ought to be treated as innocent and never endure search and seizure unless there is very good reason. You either have Article IV of the Bill of Rights or you don't. That's the issue. It is deserving of careful thought.
Before you decide, consider your corporal body. The human body is the temple of the soul. It is a magnificent gift from nature in both form and function. It houses your mind and soul. It is considered devoutly sacred by some yet barely tolerated by others. It is safe to say on behalf of everyone, however, that it is yours. It is the only instance in a capitalist Republic of you being your own private property —free and clear: you literally own your body. You can do with it pretty much as you wish. You can take it places, feed it or not, work it shamelessly, be good to it, exercise it and dress it up or take it straight to hell. Few would argue this.
Would you not consider your body more personal and private than, for example, your journal, personal papers, business records, bank books, letters, wills, or an unpublished manuscript? Would you not consider your body even more private than your home or rental unit? Is it more sacrosanct than, say, your automobile? These things are protected from illegal search and seizure by law. Why then, do you submit to your body chemistry being searched without “probable cause?” By submitting to this invasive violation of your person you humiliate yourself. What will be the consequences? What, I ask, will happen to your children, your loved ones, relatives, friends—your mother and father? What of them? What about future generations? Do you care? This may be the most troublesome question, but where will it end? At what point will search and seizure be limited? Moreover, give me an example in the history of mankind of legal protections being taken away from the people by the government and then returned. Rights are never, ever returned voluntarily and without a fight.
Our forefathers believed it was unwise to place too much trust in governments. Why? Simple answer. Governments are run by ordinary people who make laws and become impatient or willful and try to make everyone else do exactly what they want (usually for their own benefit or convenience). You just can't trust people in power all the time; it's not wise. Our Republic wanted a government that would itself have laws to follow. We wanted laws above the government. So, we made a Constitution. In a way, you could say that ours was the first government in history to have as its basic premise, “Every citizen whatever their station must respect the rights of others.” Our forefathers figured you needed a certain guaranteed independence from government and that made the best people. There just plain had to be rights for individual citizens the government couldn't touch, so it was spelled out in clear and simple language for all to read and understand. These documents were solemn oaths sworn for present and future generations. It was clear to everyone in the world, rich and poor alike, that for the newly free and independent Americans these were words to die for. Because of the American example, it has become increasingly clear to the world over the generations that if, government respects human beings, a nation will develop fine, responsible individuals. Not bad thinking, eh?
Having said these things consider the following: In America today, for the Federal guardians of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights to allow employers to demand and require you to take a drug test without “probable cause” or lose your job is wrong. It is an absolute violation of the law as painstakingly spelled out in The Bill of Rights. It is an insulting, degrading, humiliating experience for us. If, you don't think so, those of you in government, then try it. Try it our way! Go to the appointed facility on your own free time. Suffer the embarrassment of reporting in. Ask yourself during the ensuing process, why are they doing this to me? What have I done? Empty your pockets on a table like a common criminal, turn your pockets out, remove all outer garments, turn around for inspection, bear the disdain of the person who hands you a bottle and orders you to fill it in some toilet with a taped down water tank. Hand over a warm bottle of your urine, get checked off a list and ordered to gather your possessions and leave. If, this experience doesn't bother you, you don't deserve either freedom or liberty. Moreover, your weakness in accepting this treatment will wreak havoc for others over time. Future generations will ask you why in God's name you didn't speak up.
It is akin to being summarily arrested for no apparent reason and searched. It is common practice in the world at large and perhaps you see it as acceptable in America for just that reason since, “Everybody else does it.” Maybe it is that you just like to “get along,” so you follow most such requests willingly. You can always say, to quote one motorboatman, “Well, it's the nineties.”
Isn't it the responsibility of a free society such as ours to educate people as best as possible and then dare to rely on individual responsibility? Don't we need to maintain that daring risk in life, that dignified chance? Isn't Article IV of the Bill of Rights meant for us: a free people? Should not the law honor the innocent majority? I, for one, despise drugs but I despise even more being treated as a possible felon to satisfy someone's paranoid curiosity. And I loathe those who contemptuously disregard honoring my word as an individual and imply my guilt until I prove myself innocent.
The government argument to this controversy is that search and seizure by drug testing without probable cause is “for the greater good of the people.” This means for “the greater good” of the government—not the people. Something for the greater good of the people would be to go after importers, drug brokers, dealers and such without stint as to their position in politics, society, international business, financial banking ties and political ramifications, or any other considerations. This won't happen, folks. Ask yourself, if they won't pursue these things, why are they looking at me? It is because you are at hand and it's a matter of power and convenience.
We all know there is no such thing as a perfect society. Ours was founded on the acceptance of human frailty and the knowledge that people need certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away no matter what. The consequence of your giving up on Article IV of the Bill of Rights is to abdicate your personal responsibility as a citizen for the mere convenience of authority. The reward for this acquiescence is that your life will, in fact, be easier, safer and smoother under an all powerful, centralized authority. Follow the rules and you will be quite snug, happy and pleased with your life. Until they come to your door, that is. And when has history ever let us down?

David Edwards,
river guide