In recent weeks, we’ve discussed the Fourth Article of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution.

It is pretty simple: “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.”

We generally view this as a “negative” – prohibiting the FedGov from doing something that governments have done for millennia. We even can refer back to God’s warning through the prophet Samuel about what Kings Saul, David, and Solomon would do. And they were far from the first.

But we suggested – an idea triggered by Rob Morse and one of his commenters – that we turn this sideways and look at it again.

First, this right is a positive one – people have the right to secure their things. Including their bodies and minds.

Second, this God-given right is not identified as just security from government, from kings. It is applicable to anyone who tries to search and seize something from us – each of us individually. Not just the local and county and tribal and State and federal government! But our neighbors. Our homeowners association! Our employers. Our employees. Even our relatives!

Not just the cop on the road. The Border Patrol. The TSA. The legislature. The bank. The mortgage company. Our church (preacher, elder, pastor, priest, etc.)

And notice that the 1st Amendment has similar language to the 4th: the First references “the security of a free state” and the Fourth talks about being… secure! The two concepts are very closely related. First, what does a “state” (nation) refer to? Is it really the land? Or the institutions? Let us argue that it refers to the people. A free state is made up of free people! People who are secure: able to keep their privacy, their information, their bodies, their houses, their papers, and their effects.

We might argue on defining houses, papers, and effects, but is not a broad interpretation understood and logical here? Is it not reasonable, if not required, to assume that papers includes recordings, electronic records, data on thumb drives and laptops and gasp! cellular phones? Does not effects include anything we own or control? Including arms? Medicine? Gold? Silver? Other fungible goods? Perhaps even services? (Important for medical personnel, especially?)

The only restriction is generally seen as only applicable to governments and specifically to courts and court officials. Not just a warrant – therein lies the evils of the old regime AND the post-revolutionary regimes of France, of the British monarchy including Parliament. But a warrant supported by evidence (probable cause) and sworn or attested to, and very specific. Strong limits in those days. (Among other things, a time when almost all people believed that being foresworn – that is breaking your oath or affirmation – was punished by eternity in Hell.)

To summarize, our personal security is just as much recognized in the Constitution as the security of the thirteen original sovereign States (nations) that joined together and accepted that constitution. And the thirty-seven joining since then. And any future States joining, either by being added or by existing States dividing.

What can we do? Demand and act to enforce the Bill of Rights!

Note: Both the subject of warrants and the adding of States are certainly topics for future commentaries. Please provide your suggestions.\!