A deep and abiding concern about the threat from centralized power isn't a conservative value or a liberal value, it's a fundamentally American value. It's why the first 10 amendments to the Constitution – the Bill of Rights – were written and passed as an essential part of our founding document.
Taken together, the amendments enshrine powers held by the citizens. They leave no doubt as to their intent.
Two cases argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday are best understood in this light. The cases ask a fundamental question about Fourth Amendment protections in today's wireless world.
The Fourth Amendment, in its entirety: "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."
The amendment's meaning was clear when it was proposed in 1789, and it's equally apparent today – except to those who are being willfully disingenuous.
If someone is arrested, even for a minor offense, do the police have the right to scour his cell phone, searching for whatever they please?
Of course not. Anyone who is unclear on this ought just look back to the Fourth Amendment.
Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, a person's cell phone, which can effectively contain details about his entire life, has got to be off limits to the prying eyes of the authorities unless they have first obtained a warrant.
The fear-mongers will argue otherwise. A cell phone can detonate a bomb, they'll fairly shout.
But these are the rarest of cases. Exceptions can be made, but first there's got to be a rule. And the rule must be clear.
If some would hope to have to recall fewer words than those in the text of the Fourth Amendment, here are just five to remember: Tell it to the judge.