The Ultimate Oxymoron

Jim Yardley
How many oxymoron jokes can there be?  A lot, I can assure you.  One of the most common examples would be military intelligence, with the phrase amicable divorce close behind.

My personal favorite has to be a phrase used over and over (and probably one of the first any of us ever heard): common sense.

Rick Moran's AT blog entry on May 14 titled "IN Court Says No Right To Resist Illegal Police Entry To Your Home" does a great job illustrating the out-of-control nature of our judiciary.

It seems that last Thursday, the Indiana Supreme Court decided that there is absolutely no reason for a private citizen to prevent a police officer from invading said citizen's home.  To paraphrase that great legislator, Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the court apparently doesn't worry about "little legality" things like search warrants or probable cause being impediments to what amounts to uniformed breaking and entering. 

Keep the central idea of this decision in mind.  A police officer -- with no probable cause, not in hot pursuit, and without a judicially approved search warrant -- is now empowered not only to enter any home, but also to arrest any and all residents of said home if the residents do anything to impede his entry.  Private citizens can now be subjected to unrestricted searches of their homes, possessions, and (I would infer) persons at the whim of any police officer.

At the same time, the State of Arizona has been told, in a ruling from a different court, that it is illegal to even ask for identification from any person unless it is done subsequent to the commission of a crime that results in an arrest.

So we have two courts -- both with judges who are graduates of the same types of law schools, who have been "vetted" by the American Bar Association and appointed by either a state or federal chief executive -- who have decided that:

a. You have absolutely no right to protection as described in the Fourth Amendment, which assures (for those of you preparing for the test at the end of class):

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.

b. This same government has absolutely no right to invade your privacy even to the extent of asking for identification.

This is the reason why I consistently vote for common sense as the ultimate oxymoron.  Apparently, sense is not a common commodity within judicial circles.

Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller, a Vietnam veteran, and an independent voter.  Jim blogs at
http://jimyardley.wordpress.com, or he can be contacted directly at james.v.yardley@gmail.com.
How many oxymoron jokes can there be?  A lot, I can assure you.  One of the most common examples would be military intelligence, with the phrase amicable divorce close behind.

My personal favorite has to be a phrase used over and over (and probably one of the first any of us ever heard): common sense.

Rick Moran's AT blog entry on May 14 titled "IN Court Says No Right To Resist Illegal Police Entry To Your Home" does a great job illustrating the out-of-control nature of our judiciary.

It seems that last Thursday, the Indiana Supreme Court decided that there is absolutely no reason for a private citizen to prevent a police officer from invading said citizen's home.  To paraphrase that great legislator, Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the court apparently doesn't worry about "little legality" things like search warrants or probable cause being impediments to what amounts to uniformed breaking and entering. 

Keep the central idea of this decision in mind.  A police officer -- with no probable cause, not in hot pursuit, and without a judicially approved search warrant -- is now empowered not only to enter any home, but also to arrest any and all residents of said home if the residents do anything to impede his entry.  Private citizens can now be subjected to unrestricted searches of their homes, possessions, and (I would infer) persons at the whim of any police officer.

At the same time, the State of Arizona has been told, in a ruling from a different court, that it is illegal to even ask for identification from any person unless it is done subsequent to the commission of a crime that results in an arrest.

So we have two courts -- both with judges who are graduates of the same types of law schools, who have been "vetted" by the American Bar Association and appointed by either a state or federal chief executive -- who have decided that:

a. You have absolutely no right to protection as described in the Fourth Amendment, which assures (for those of you preparing for the test at the end of class):

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.

b. This same government has absolutely no right to invade your privacy even to the extent of asking for identification.

This is the reason why I consistently vote for common sense as the ultimate oxymoron.  Apparently, sense is not a common commodity within judicial circles.

Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller, a Vietnam veteran, and an independent voter.  Jim blogs at
http://jimyardley.wordpress.com, or he can be contacted directly at james.v.yardley@gmail.com.