"The right of the people to be secure in their... houses...". As I read that this thought popped into mind: Who's house is it anyway? Failure to pay the Royal Rent (property taxes and who knows how many other fees and regulations) and the residents will find out very quickly who the property owner really is and it isn't the folks that paid the bank's mortgage. Given that, why would government agents need any kind of warrant to enter property effectively owned by the government? Scary thought, isn't it?! However, as the Neo Communists gain more power over our lives this is bound to become another issue.

It certainly should have, I agree. That's why this was so startling coming from a State Supreme Court.

The unfortunate thing is that most of those states are run by a few major cities - the rural provinces aren't succumbing to the progressive lies. Eastern Oregon is actually quite pleasant, as is New York outside of the City, and especially Illinois outside Chicago.

One of the most disgusting things was that the Court just "gave up" because they were split. It was a complete cop-out.

It infringed, no question. (Technically, they can't take away a right. All they can do is punish you for exercising it contrary to moral law.)

The case isn't about probable cause (which the defense didn't argue against), but obstruction of justice based on simple inaction. The judges here ruled that the individual had a duty to assist - a very dangerous ruling.

Precisely what makes it a very dangerous accusation indeed.