Capital Gazette wins special Pulitzer Prize citation for coverage of newsroom shooting that killed five

'Stop-and-frisk' will never pass constitutional muster

In response to Dan Rodricks' recent column on New York's "stop-and-frisk" policing policies, I have one suggestion: Move to North Korea or Iran. Once there, you can eagerly support their lack of constitutional rights ("We want your guns, not your drugs," Aug. 31).

Mr. Rodricks claims that "the Constitution sometimes gets in the way of sweeping police practices believed intuitively to be effective. Baltimore police will need to balance aggressive gun enforcement in the shadow of the New York ruling, should it survive appeals."

Our Founding Fathers had exactly that sentiment in mind when they drafted our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Those laws were meant to protect U.S. citizens from the excesses of our government and the politicians in charge of it.

The government already has too much power over us, and to endorse such oppressive tactics as Mr. Rodricks suggests is unconscionable and irresponsible.

If you have heartburn with a particular law or a part of the Constitution, you should work to change it through the legislative process. To sidestep or ignore a law is no better than breaking it openly, especially so when the Constitution is being ignored.

I would bet that Mr. Rodricks would come down on me like a ton of bricks if I suggested that we require all journalists to present their reporting to a censor prior to publication.

New York's "stop-and-frisk" policy was grossly unconstitutional and would be no less unconstitutional if implemented in Baltimore or anywhere else in Maryland.

John Berling, Sykesville

Copyright © 2019, The Baltimore Sun, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Place an Ad