We've all heard the argument: that the founders were only thinking about muskets when they affirmed the 2A's protections from government infringement on self defense. We all know that's nonsense, but some of the grabbers really do seem to think that's a viable approach to supporting local restrictions, etc. Even when you counter with, "Well, they didn't have the radios, television, or even photocopiers in mind when they codified the 1A's protections, either ..." you'll get blank stares, but the occasional very dim little light bulb will turn on.
It's always nice to have multiple examples to cite, so that not only can we draw the distinction between originalist/textualist and activist judges, but we can show how these things are a matter of principal rather than necessarily practicality. In this (the Carpenter) case, the mix of judges that did or didn't agree with the "you need a warrant to get hold of cell tower location data" is a bit odd, and suggests how complex the topic can be, because of the competing interests of personal liberty and law enforcement/investigation. But the right outcome occurred.
It's another VERY good example of the PURPOSE of the Bill of Rights being upheld despite its authors having no possible concept of a given technological development down the road. The justices found that our expectation of protection from prying investigations (in this case, into where we've been and when we were there) without a warrant exposing that information is just as valid today as it was two centuries ago, despite then-unimaginable technologies coming into play centuries later.
The founders understood self defense, free expression, association, freedom from capricious search and seizure, and so much more as PRINCIPLES, not as practical rules based on particular objects, technologies, or circumstances. It's every bit as true for the 2A as it is for the 4A.
It's always nice to have multiple examples to cite, so that not only can we draw the distinction between originalist/textualist and activist judges, but we can show how these things are a matter of principal rather than necessarily practicality. In this (the Carpenter) case, the mix of judges that did or didn't agree with the "you need a warrant to get hold of cell tower location data" is a bit odd, and suggests how complex the topic can be, because of the competing interests of personal liberty and law enforcement/investigation. But the right outcome occurred.
It's another VERY good example of the PURPOSE of the Bill of Rights being upheld despite its authors having no possible concept of a given technological development down the road. The justices found that our expectation of protection from prying investigations (in this case, into where we've been and when we were there) without a warrant exposing that information is just as valid today as it was two centuries ago, despite then-unimaginable technologies coming into play centuries later.
The founders understood self defense, free expression, association, freedom from capricious search and seizure, and so much more as PRINCIPLES, not as practical rules based on particular objects, technologies, or circumstances. It's every bit as true for the 2A as it is for the 4A.