Each time the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case, they “change” the U.S. Constitution by changing the way it is interpreted. Some argue for “strict construction,” saying the justices should interpret the words of the Constitution literally. Others argue for “loose construction,” saying a document written in the 1780s must be interpreted in the context of modern society.

Read about a Supreme Court case called U.S. v. Jones, about police tracking a suspect through the use of a GPS device they attached covertly to his car.

Imagine you are considering this case as one of the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Your job is to interpret the Constitution, not to make new law. The Fourth Amendment says citizens have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures….” It doesn’t really say whether a Jeep Grand Cherokee is one of a person’s “effects,” or where to draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable. Is electronically tracking a suspect’s car on a public street, where a cop could watch him drive if he followed him around in his patrol car, an unreasonable search?

As a member of the Supreme Court, how would you rule on this case? Why? Post a paragraph in Discussion (due no later than February 6) explaining your view to your colleagues on the Court.