There seems to have always been reason for one to give government some quotient of security for the protection of property and civil liberty. In the lawless West a Sheriff was elected to protect freedoms of settlers against ambitious hustlers and rustlers who roamed the open plains according to strict compliance to the rule of law under Constitutional safeguards. A wise and judicious expense of capital for the security the Sheriff’s badge of protection conveyed. Due process has always been the hallmark of a free and civilized society. But governments and their agents give small regard to this perception seeking more and more authority taking liberties in compensation for the greater good. The uproar about Apple and the San Bernardino terrorist’s iPhone is perfect subtle example.
A warrant was duly issued to Apple in this criminal terrorist case to open and report the contents of Syed Farook’s iPhone. A possible phone list therein could lead government investigators to other conspirators who may be captured, brought to justice and end some of the continuing reign of terror. The request for Apple to open the cell phone seems fairly innocuous and completely within purvey of Constitutional justice at first look. Without broader understanding or additional facts Apple seems to be acting unreasonable and on the face of it obstructing justice.
I was not greatly concerned about the case thinking it was a simple argument of opening a safe or file cabinet to hand over subpoenaed documents according to a Judge’s warrant. Not so after closer inspection. It wasn’t until I read Brent Regan’s brilliant research attached below regarding this case in light of the 3rd Amendment that lead me to look deeper. The 3rd Amendment, a rarely litigated element of jurist arguments, made the inquest even more delicious.
Not only is the governments warrant an attempt to open a back-door to Apple customer’s privacy, violating the 4th Amendment, it is also a startling attempt to set up shop in Apple’s place of business. A keen observation of Mr. Regan’s premise that coercion of Apple to open the iPhone would be a clear violation of the 3rd Amendment. Wow a two way strike against the Constitution in one clean blow, doesn’t get better than that at even with the Duma.
Sometimes inconsequential issues liberate the wisdom of the seemingly incomprehensible protections those genius drafters of the Bill of Rights conveyed. This small iPhone event in the course of grand human events looks insignificant but the exercise of unbridled power in the search for justice and security is surely the power that lit the match that burnt down the barn to catch a mouse.
This Apple iPhone issue is also notable as one of the many that are touted by the politicos as “Common Sense” approaches to political and societal solutions. The current crop of presidential candidates all see the issue this way. Not one sees the implication of government over-reach through the eyes of a savvy Constitutionalist. Alarming especially for the supposedly legally trained Constitutional lawyers amongst the crew.
I hope you will look at this issue with more in-depth analysis as we may look closer at all issues fanned in the flames of public opinion by the agenda bias pundits of public programming for clues to the whole truth and nothing but.
Have a look at one of my go-to analysts, Stefan Molyneux, a blogger of some repute with a bit of a naughty streak and sometimes profane manner but worthy of inspection for an alternate view of the universe. His link to the issue with Apple: https://youtu.be/K9gN5F4mGfo
You may wish to review other retorts of interest at his YouTube site: https://www.youtube.com/freedomainradio