DOE SWAT Raids Now???

SWAT-like Raid Over Student Loans
0 Comments

Abuse of law enforcement officers and even officers not intended for
law enforcement by the current administration is reaching
unprecedented levels. Despite campaign promises of greater
transparency, clear violations of accepted practices and even law
breaking are stonewalled or spun away by the current Democratic
administration.

While the legal and constitutional controversies seem to be popping up
with an ever increasing frequency, scandals are nothing new to this
administration. Well before the Benghazi, PRISM, NSA, campaign
funding, White House travel expenses and numerous other scandals,
scandals had already occurred or were in the process of happening
despite not having been noted by the press. One example is the tragic
story of a man in Stockton, California, found his home being raided at
6 in the morning by 15 officers.

Apparently, the raid was conducted in an attempt to locate his wife,
but the resident, Kenneth Wright, noted that his three children were
placed in a police car, and handcuffing write as they would a
criminal. Wright reportedly learned later that the raid was conducted
by the U.S. Department of Education, rather than local police
officers.

As these types of raids become commonplace, experts and concerned
citizens are alarmed that the United States Constitution’s fourth
amendment, which protects the people from “unreasonable searches and
seizures” by the Government, and ensures their “right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” is being
destroyed by the Democratic administration.

Despite the Constitution, these types of raids are believed to be more
common, as the legal system provides increasingly less protection to
citizens in these cases. For example, in 2011, the Indiana Supreme
Court controversially ruled that citizens have no right to resist
police officers who illegally enter their homes. The US Justice
Department under Obama and Holder apparently found no problem with
this ruling. In the ruling, the court ruled 3-2, cited risks to

officers if citizens were allowed to defend themselves. It is not
clear whether or not the court took into consideration the safety of
citizens who’s due process has already been violated by an illegal
entry into their home.

Experts on the subject have questioned the court’s ability to
seemingly sidestep the 4th Amendment of the United States
Constitution, which states that the right of American citizens to be
secure in their person and houses “shall not be violated.”