Nitpicking my own semantics

When I implied that Judge Alito is an “originalist” in my earlier post, I meant to imply that he’s a strict constructionist, which is the term of choice President Bush and his fellow conservatives like to run up the flag pole. The terms can get a little muddled. I didn’t help that, but it was apparent what I meant, i.e. not legislating from the bench. Specifically, Judge Alito’s ruling in Doe v. Groody doesn’t appear to mesh with the idea of reading only what’s in the text of the Fourth Amendment.

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.

I don’t see any word resembling “affidavit” in there, but I’m sure this is an oversight on my part and not a former prosecutor’s defense of state power at the expense of Constitutional rights.