Written by olsonaplc-8dSchool: Sioux Central
Congressional Intent - Constitutional Law Badge(150 points)
The methods that support this legal interpretation are the laws that came forth in section 1983,(Title 42 of the U.S. Code) giving them the right to invade the privacy rights if there is a suspicion the individual has committed a crime and needs to be investigated without knowing about it. The reasons against is that it is going against the rights of American citizens by destroying the fourth amendment, giving the right for people to have privacy. The should not figure out what the laws were 140 years ago and they should apply modern understandings. The reason for this is because 140 years ago does not matter if the laws have changed and these are the current laws. I believe it is wrong to invade someone’s privacy, however it can be useful and send guilty individuals to jail or prison where they belong. It is wrong to falsify documents as they did though, even if it was all for a good cause because they lied under oath. You can not do this. The immunity plea should not be used because you should have to take responsibility for your actions and face the consequences. So the way I see it, it was wrong for Paulk to invade the privacy of Rehberg. However, I do not believe Rehberg should get the sums of money he is requesting, maybe enough for any damages Paulk caused but no more than that.