Affidavit Of Peaceful Surrender (Individual: Fill & Download for Free

Governmental search is restricted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, requiring a warrant except under certain circumstances. An officer may be able to articulate a sufficient level of suspicion to conduct a search or make an arrest without a warrant; however, this is an interpretation of facts, and there is room for error, as well as misfeasance (exaggerating evidence for, and ignoring evidence against the stated suspicion, in a mistaken attempt to seek justice) and malfeasance (exaggerating evidence for and ignoring evidence against the stated suspicion, in an attempt to subvert justice).The law does not require that an offense has actually been committed in order for an officer conducting a search or making an arrest to do those things, only that they be able to articulate the specific circumstances leading them to believe probable cause existed. In contrast, in most states, if a citizen’s arrest is effected, and if the crime has not been committed, or if the citizen did not actually witness the crime (commonly limited to a breach of the peace or felony), the citizen is generally subject to arrest (e.g., unlawful restraint, assault); whereas, an officer is not (assuming no evidence of misfeasance or malfeasance).There are five levels of suspicion. The first is some or mere suspicion, where objective facts are not articulable (i.e., a hunch). Next in order is reasonable suspicion, wherein a reasonable officer has objective and articulable facts, that, when taken in context, allow inference as to the commission of a crime, which could lead to a pat-down search and/or questioning (U.S. Supreme Court, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 1967).The third level is probable cause, which exceeds reasonable suspicion. PC is less than certainty and is the standard for arrest and search without a warrant for peace officers. There are numerous guidance factors to be considered by the officer to determine if the "totality of circumstances" meets the probable cause (PC) threshold. That may include credible third party information, such as information from a person who claims personal knowledge (e.g., witness descriptions), and there is no disconfirming information as to the truth of that person’s statement. PC exists if an officer sees something illegal in plain view (i.e., fruits of a crime, instrumentalities of a crime, or evidence of a crime), and the officer has the right to be where he is (the suspect has no reasonable expectation of privacy; e.g., evidence of drug trafficking left in trash left for pick-up beyond the curtilage of the residence, or drugs visible in a vehicle). And, probable cause is based on the training and experience of a reasonable peace officer, not necessarily a reasonable person.A search warrant affidavit must convince a judge that PC exists, and that what is to be searched for (i.e., fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence) can be found in a specific location. General knowledge of the propensities of people committing like crimes can also be considered as relevant in establishing PC.Exigent circumstances for search without a warrant exist when:An officer has probable cause to believe that the time it would take to go get a warrant would result in the destruction of the evidence. The second is when officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon chases that felon into a REP (right of expectation of privacy) area. The third is when the officer needs to enter a home to save somebody from harm. (Exigent Circumstances (MP3))Regarding vehicle search:There are two reasons why officers typically don’t need a search warrant for mobile conveyance. Now think about what mobile conveyance means - these are cars, trucks, airplanes and boats. People have a reduced expectation of privacy in these means of transportation. They are highly regulated. We have to be licensed to drive. The car has to be registered. In a lot of states, the car has to be inspected. There’s even a vehicle identification number next to the windshield that’s there for people, like police officers, to see. And second, motor vehicles are mobile. The vehicle might be driven off by the suspect while the police are attempting to obtain a search warrant. …Officers can’t go inside the passenger compartment of a car or just pop the truck whenever they feel like it. There are three requirements that have to be met in order to search a vehicle. First, the vehicle has to be in a public place. The mobile conveyance exception to the warrant requirement doesn’t apply if the car is in a garage or on the curtilage of a home. Second, the vehicle has to be readily mobile. This means the vehicle must appear to be operational to a reasonable person; however, it’s not necessary that the vehicle be moving or even occupied. …The third one is that there has to be probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime will be located in the vehicle.(4th Amendment RoadMap)Areas subject to voluntary search include those locations where the person surrendering search rights has an expectation of privacy and common areas (i.e., areas shared by another occupant and this person) for fruits of a crime, instrumentalities of a crime, or evidence of a crime. And anything of that sort observed in plain sight from a common area is subject to seizure. Also, observations from a common area into areas where other occupants have an expectation of privacy may result in a search warrant affidavit, written with the intent to convince a judge as to what fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence is to be searched for, and where it is suspected to be.A legally arrested suspect may be searched without a warrant, to include the area within their immediate control.Voluntarily consent to a search eliminates the need for a warrant. A valid consent search requires that the individual has legitimate control of the area to be searched and that coercion or trickery was not employed to obtain the consent.The fourth level is reasonable certainty, which is more than PC, but less than the fifth, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the level needed to convict someone of a crime. Reasonable certainty is generally applied in civil cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not absolute certainty; therefore, a jury may find that a prosecutor may not have reached that level, when in fact the person is guilty. Or, they may acquit a person that actually committed the crime if the evidence presented is inadequate or perceived to be inadequate to preclude doubt sufficiently. Which means that it is important to note that acquittal is not the same as being found innocent.Other sources of information:https://www.fletc.gov/4th-amendment-roadmapWhat are the levels of suspicion?

http://www.quora.com/What-constitutes-probable-cause-for-a-police-officer-to-be-able-to-search-a-car-without-a-warrant/answer/Dan-Robb-2Governmental search is restricted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, requiring a warrant except under certain circumstances. An officer may be able to articulate a sufficient level of suspicion to conduct a search or make an arrest without a warrant; however, this is an interpretation of facts, and there is room for error, as well as misfeasance (exaggerating evidence for, and ignoring evidence against the stated suspicion, in a mistaken attempt to seek justice) and malfeasance (exaggerating evidence for and ignoring evidence against the stated suspicion, in an attempt to subvert justice).The law does not require that an offense has actually been committed in order for an officer conducting a search or making an arrest to do those things, only that they be able to articulate the specific circumstances leading them to believe probable cause existed. In contrast, in most states, if a citizen’s arrest is effected, and if the crime has not been committed, or if the citizen did not actually witness the crime (commonly limited to a breach of the peace or felony), the citizen is generally subject to arrest (e.g., unlawful restraint, assault); whereas, an officer is not (assuming no evidence of misfeasance or malfeasance).There are five levels of suspicion. The first is some or mere suspicion, where objective facts are not articulable (i.e., a hunch). Next in order is reasonable suspicion, wherein a reasonable officer has objective and articulable facts, that, when taken in context, allow inference as to the commission of a crime, which could lead to a pat-down search and/or questioning (U.S. Supreme Court, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 1967).The third level is probable cause, which exceeds reasonable suspicion. PC is less than certainty and is the standard for arrest and search without a warrant for peace officers. There are numerous guidance factors to be considered by the officer to determine if the "totality of circumstances" meets the probable cause (PC) threshold. That may include credible third party information, such as information from a person who claims personal knowledge (e.g., witness descriptions), and there is no disconfirming information as to the truth of that person’s statement. PC exists if an officer sees something illegal in plain view (i.e., fruits of a crime, instrumentalities of a crime, or evidence of a crime), and the officer has the right to be where he is (the suspect has no reasonable expectation of privacy; e.g., evidence of drug trafficking left in trash left for pick-up beyond the curtilage of the residence, or drugs visible in a vehicle). And, probable cause is based on the training and experience of a reasonable peace officer, not necessarily a reasonable person.A search warrant affidavit must convince a judge that PC exists, and that what is to be searched for (i.e., fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence) can be found in a specific location. General knowledge of the propensities of people committing like crimes can also be considered as relevant in establishing PC.Exigent circumstances for search without a warrant exist when:An officer has probable cause to believe that the time it would take to go get a warrant would result in the destruction of the evidence. The second is when officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon chases that felon into a REP (right of expectation of privacy) area. The third is when the officer needs to enter a home to save somebody from harm. (https://www.fletc.gov/audio/exigent-circumstances-mp3)Regarding vehicle search:There are two reasons why officers typically don’t need a search warrant for mobile conveyance. Now think about what mobile conveyance means - these are cars, trucks, airplanes and boats. People have a reduced expectation of privacy in these means of transportation. They are highly regulated. We have to be licensed to drive. The car has to be registered. In a lot of states, the car has to be inspected. There’s even a vehicle identification number next to the windshield that’s there for people, like police officers, to see. And second, motor vehicles are mobile. The vehicle might be driven off by the suspect while the police are attempting to obtain a search warrant. …Officers can’t go inside the passenger compartment of a car or just pop the truck whenever they feel like it. There are three requirements that have to be met in order to search a vehicle. First, the vehicle has to be in a public place. The mobile conveyance exception to the warrant requirement doesn’t apply if the car is in a garage or on the curtilage of a home. Second, the vehicle has to be readily mobile. This means the vehicle must appear to be operational to a reasonable person; however, it’s not necessary that the vehicle be moving or even occupied. …The third one is that there has to be probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime will be located in the vehicle.(https://www.fletc.gov/4th-amendment-roadmap)Areas subject to voluntary search include those locations where the person surrendering search rights has an expectation of privacy and common areas (i.e., areas shared by another occupant and this person) for fruits of a crime, instrumentalities of a crime, or evidence of a crime. And anything of that sort observed in plain sight from a common area is subject to seizure. Also, observations from a common area into areas where other occupants have an expectation of privacy may result in a search warrant affidavit, written with the intent to convince a judge as to what fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence is to be searched for, and where it is suspected to be.A legally arrested suspect may be searched without a warrant, to include the area within their immediate control.Voluntarily consent to a search eliminates the need for a warrant. A valid consent search requires that the individual has legitimate control of the area to be searched and that coercion or trickery was not employed to obtain the consent.The fourth level is reasonable certainty, which is more than PC, but less than the fifth, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the level needed to convict someone of a crime. Reasonable certainty is generally applied in civil cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not absolute certainty; therefore, a jury may find that a prosecutor may not have reached that level, when in fact the person is guilty. Or, they may acquit a person that actually committed the crime if the evidence presented is inadequate or perceived to be inadequate to preclude doubt sufficiently. Which means that it is important to note that acquittal is not the same as being found innocent.Other sources of information:https://www.fletc.gov/4th-amendment-roadmaphttp://www.findlegaladvice.org/forum/Law-Enforcement-Police/What-are-the-levels-of-suspicion-447204.htm

A well-phrased question, and as such, I’ll extend an answer in substantial depth. This will be a long document, and I will endeavour to give citations with links where possible, page and paragraph numbers and information where available. If there are disagreements, please cite the particular section and phrase in which there is disagreement, and I will review your statement, attempt to support my own, and look at contrary information. It is not sufficient, however, to merely look at it at the time of the founding, but how it was perceived in its country of origin, as well as how it was interpreted until the 14th amendment. All of these changed things.There are two questions here, though the two are inextricably intertwined. To get to the root of the phrasing itself, and the language involved in the framing of that amendment, you have to go back in time.The right to keep and bear arms under the US history is actually not belonging originally to the US at all. It was a privilege and immunity of British citizenship. The right’s origins are long-since lost in antiquity (though I’ve seen references from King John IV on treaty law regarding Portugal, and reciprocal rights to British citizens and Portugese in transfer in comity).The most clear history on the subject, though, goes through colonial charters, and deals in the privileges, immunities, liberties, and exemptions of British Citizens. This by itself is a large body of history, so I’m going to narrow the subject to the right to keep and bear arms. The purpose of these aspects in the British Empire was to ensure a singular set of rights, making a single ‘country’ out of those far-flung British colonies and possessions, and assuring no person leaving from England could lose in any colony the traditional rights, privileges, and immunities accruing to being a subject of the British crown. These were also often called ‘liberties’.Charter of VirginiaXV. Also we do, for Us, our Heirs, and Successors, DECLARE, by these Presents, that all and every the Persons, being our Subjects, which shall dwell and inhabit within every or any of the said several Colonies and Plantations, and every of their children, which shall happen to be born within any of the Limits and Precincts of the said several Colonies and Plantations, shall HAVE and enjoy all Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities, within any of our other Dominions, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born, within this our Realm of England, or any other of our said Dominions.This was most strongly codified after 1689, after the Glorious Revolution - WikipediaParliament feared being dissolved in favor of the Royal Perogative. They sealed much of their parliamentary actions under fear of Crown suppression, as persons were being taken and jailed, and even tortured and executed under the hands of the crown. This led to the British Bill of Rights of 1689 - Wikipedia. Among these were the dissolution of the British army, and the retention of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This was the pattern for much of our US bill of rights under the constitution, because they were preexisting rights guaranteed to the colonists under those old charters.English Bill of Rights 1689 Text copy.The reasons it was laid out were placed within the bill of rights itself, and it was later extended further under the Toleration Act 1689 - Wikipedia It was not actually extended to the Catholics until 1778.Due to the status as British subjects, this right applied to all of the persons involved within any place under the British domain.It was fairly heavily discussed what the right entailed under Blackstone’s commentaries, before the Revolution, and this document (coupled with that prior revolution) became the legal grounds upon which that right was to be used and prosecuted. That bill of rights was at the core of the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress - WikipediaResolved, N. C. D. 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever a right to dispose of either without their consent.Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural- born subjects, within the realm of England.Resolved, N.C.D. 3. That by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy.This was separate but related to the Declaration of Independence.The Declaration of IndependenceTHe prior link compares the three known drafts of that document.Note that the Declaration, when talking of constitutions, did not speak of our own Constitution, but the preexisting British one.Absolute Rights of Individuals - LONANG InstituteBlackstone’s commentaries are really the best surviving definition of this original right, and explanation. Note that these are individual rights, not rights fo colonies nor rights of the British crown, but individual and personal rights.5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.In these several articles consist the rights, or, as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englishmen: liberties more generally talked of, than thoroughly understood; and yet highly necessary to be perfectly known and considered by every man of rank or property, lest his ignorance of the points whereon it is founded should hurry him into faction and licentiousness on the one hand, or a pusillanimous indifference and criminal submission on the other. And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property. so long as these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or other of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possibly be employed. To preserve these from violation, it is necessary that the constitution of parliaments be supported in its full vigor; and limits certainly known, be set to the royal prerogative. And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts and law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defenseUnder that bill of rights of 1688, the standing military was dissolved, and a system by which the people were called up into military service for training was established. These were called ‘militias’, untrained persons called to arms for service to their country. They would bring any weapon they possessed for that purpose.These were the origins of the right, common to all persons within the colonies, and bound to them under British law.At a certain point in the revolution, there was a discussion of this issue in the British Parliament, in 1777.The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803 page 554.And what was the result of this last petition? His magesty was advised by his ministers, fatally for the honour, interest, and justice of this country, to say, that no answer should be given. What then was there left for the Americans, but to take up arms in their own defence, when their petitions were rejected unheard, and the whole force of this country, and all the mercenary forces of Europe were sent to invade them?I have often said in this House, and I must repeat it, that I shall never call these men rebels, nor their cause rebellion, but a justifiable resistance. You cannot look into your own Bill of Rights, but you will see a formal recognition of the right of resistance in the subject. When the liberties. and privileges of a British subject are invaded, and his petitions rejected, every such subject has a right to the use of arms in his own defence. So says the Act which is declaratory of the rights of the British constitution, and the corner-stone of all the liberties which we enjoy in this country. As, in my opinion, upon these constitutional principles, the resistance in the beginning of these troubles was justifiable on the part of the Americans, Who were then our fellow-subjects, I must now upon the same principles, consider our perserverence of the continuation of an unjust war on our part against them.On page 371, as well, it talks of those privileges and immunties applying to the colonial charters.But your lordships will ask, supposing we were willing to treat, is America equally well inclined? To this I shall generally answer, that I think the political connection ,and superiority of this country with and over America is indissoluble and indisputable. I think this empire to be entire, but the peculiar rights, privileges, and immunities of its several constituent parts, to be sacred and inviolable; I was consequently against any express parliamentary avowal of that right, because I thought it-impolitic and unnecessary; [His lordship alluded to the Declaratory law.] but as to America, and its views of independency, I must own, I always looked upon that country to be as much a part. of Great Britain, to every purpose but that of taxation, as Devonshire, Surrey, or Middlesex. When l say this, I would be perfectly and clearly understood, to reserve the colonies their municipal rights; the preservation of their charters; and above all, the right of taxing themselves; for without this last right, I can never be brought to believe that America will return to its former state; or if it should, that the colonies would have, in truth, any thing they could justly call their own.The founders intended, looking at the documentation, to preserve those rights of British citizenship, and make them more perfect and less trammeled by the hands of those who might attempt to be their rulers. By the time of the revolution, the right to keep and bear arms in Britain had been broken down so much as to be rarely used, conditions of land and monetary taxes and fees attached to it, largely for the excuse of preserving game.Having established that the people were the militia on being called up, possessed of their own private arms, we move to the constitution itself. There were letters written on the subject, and posted in various newspapers.The Federalist #26 On the dangers of a standing army.The Federalist #44 The restrictions on the authority of the several states.The Federalist #46 A comparison between the state and federal governments.But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.The federalist 46 lays out a lot of the same foundation for rebellion and resistance, largely under the state assistance.Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.I’d argue that we’re long into the train of insidious measures on that, but it’s another story for another time.I note, that all this was before the Bill of Rights, and the right to rebellion was seen as one of the things that was preserved to the people. The fear of the states was that the federal government might limit their powers, and the rights of the people by operating via that supremacy clause to reduce the authority of the state governments. The privilege and immunities clause, for instance in article 4 coupled with the judiciary powers allowed suits for the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities protected under that original British Bill of Rights.Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 419 (1793)The Chisholm case was one of these."Art.3. sect. 2. The Judicial Power shall extend" "(1) To all cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;""(2) To all cases affecting Ambassadors, or other public Ministers, and Consuls;""(3) To all cases of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction;""(4) To controversies to which the Page 2 U. S. 431 United States shall be a party;""(5) To controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State or the citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens or subjects."Before much jurisprudence could be tried under this clause, upon the very first case, the states passed the 11th amendment, to remove that judicial review from the Federal constitution.Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution - WikipediaThe states declared themselves the only judge over their own power in 1794.Thereafter, there was only minimal jurisprudence on the subject, usually surrounding slavery law, and only very rarely at the Federal level (The best example being Dred Scott v Sandford, reflecting back on the earlier British privileges and immunities issues).Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1856)The 14th amendment was passed with this slavery case in mind in 1868, related to the freedmen bureau acts, and the KKK act of 1866.In every case prior to this one, the courts had declined to interpret what might be under that article 4 clause.This is page 416–417. (Noting the document starts at page 393).It cannot be supposed that they intended to secure to them rights and privileges and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police Page 60 U. S. 417 regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State. It is impossible, it would seem, to believe that the great men of the slaveholding States, who took so large a share in framing the Constitution of the United States and exercised so much influence in procuring its adoption, could have been so forgetful or regardless of their own safety and the safety of those who trusted and confided in them.This comports neatly with the earlier privileges and immunities clause under the British constitution.Congressional Debates of the 14th AmendmentPage 16–18 of that document discusses the intent of the amendment, coupled with the article 4 prohibitions from the power of the state. The 14th amendment returned the jurisdiction to the Federal supreme court, and the district courts, to review such violations.“We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental, which belong of right to the citizens of all free Governments, and which have at all times been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are it would, perhaps, be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: protection by the Government, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject nevertheless to such restraints as the Government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole.”and continuing;“Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be — for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature — to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.Which brought us full-circle.Madison’s statement on article 4.It is obviously impracticable in the foederal government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all-Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was encreased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears [FN17] to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on [FN18] points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensible.Madison recognized that those documents were merely a paper barrier, a warning to be on your guard.Founders Online: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 17 October 1788Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current. Notwithstanding the explicit provision contained in that instrument for the rights of Conscience it is well known that a religious establishment wd. have taken place in that State, if the legislative majority had found as they expected, a majority of the people in favor of the measure; and I am persuaded that if a majority of the people were now of one sect, the measure would still take place and on narrower ground than was then proposed, notwithstanding the additional obstacle which the law has since created. Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is cheifly5 to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. This is a truth of great importance, but not yet sufficiently attended to: and is probably more strongly impressed on my mind by facts, and reflections suggested by them, than on yours which has contemplated abuses of power issuing from a very different quarter. Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful & interested party than by a powerful and interested prince. The difference, so far as it relates to the superiority of republics over monarchies, lies in the less degree of probability that interest may prompt abuses of power in the former than in the latter; and in the security in the former agst. oppression of more than the smaller part of the society, whereas in the former6 it may be extended in a manner to the whole. The difference so far as it relates to the point in question—the efficacy of a bill of rights in controuling abuses of power—lies in this, that in a monarchy the latent force of the nation is superior to that of the sovereign, and a solemn charter of popular rights must have a great effect, as a standard for trying the validity of public acts, and a signal for rousing & uniting the superior force of the community; whereas in a popular Government, the political and physical power may be considered as vested in the same hands, that is in a majority of the people, and consequently the tyrannical will of the sovereign is not [to] be controuled by the dread of an appeal to any other force within the community. What use then it may be asked can a bill of rights serve in popular Governments? I answer the two following which though less essential than in other Governments, sufficiently recommend the precaution. 1. The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion. 2. Altho’ it be generally true as above stated that the danger of oppression lies in the interested majorities of the people rather than in usurped acts of the Government, yet there may be occasions on which the evil may spring from the latter sources; and on such, a bill of rights will be a good ground for an appeal to the sense of the community. Perhaps too there may be a certain degree of danger, that a succession of artful and ambitious rulers, may by gradual & well-timed advances, finally erect an independent Government on the subversion of liberty. Should this danger exist at all, it is prudent to guard against. it, especially when the precaution can do no injury. At the same time I must own that I see no tendency in our governments to danger on that side. It has been remarked that there is a tendency in all Governments to an augmentation of power at the expence of libertyProbably the best way to finish this is William Rawle’s statement on the right. He was the attorney-general of the United States in 1791.William Rawle: A View of the Constitution: Chapter XThe prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.Edit: Citation added for Rawle