Constitution-Free Zone

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

So apparently DHS says if you're found within 100 miles of a U.S. border, the 4th amendment does not apply.

I'm pretty sure they meant those parts of the U.S./Mexican border without many people living in them (which is still not cool), but ACLU is painting a picture of this applying across all borders--the whole south, whole north, whole east and west. Some entire states are swallowed up within that.

My guess is that DHS is going to apply it as they like until someone raises issue for being subjected to it and then it (eventually) goes up to the Supreme Court. As it is, I live within 100 miles of the Atlantic Ocean, so sucks to be me?
 
strawman

strawman

Hmm. This is a difficult issue. If you walk/fly/drive/etc into the country they have the right to search your devices when you present your passport/visa/etc.

The border, however, is not protected for many thousands of miles.

So I could understand them preforming a search if they reasonably suspect that you've come into the country at a point other than a border inspection station.

I don't understand the broad claim that they can seize and search any electronic device within 100 miles of the border though. I live in southeast michigan, less than 40 miles from canada, so it sounds like they can, without any suspicion whatsoever, collect all my electronic devices and hold them indefinitely without a court order.

Sounds like a problem to me!
 
Tress

Tress

Thanks for the link.

So, that's a bunch of bullshit. I don't feel like trying to be eloquent, so I'll just be blunt. We cannot protect this country by forsaking its core principles. The 4th Amendment should be treated as sacred, and this is an affront to the very idea of America. I hope the ACLU crushes them in court and this crap is put to an end. A reasonable search is fine, but "suspicion-less" searches should never happen.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Yeah, this isn't going to last. The first time they use this against anyone who isn't white, there will be a discrimination lawsuit and this will get to the Supreme Court... who will likely reaffirm that you are not allowed to racially profile and that this is just a round about way to do it.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Tress said:
Thanks for the link.

So, that's a bunch of bullshit. I don't feel like trying to be eloquent, so I'll just be blunt.
Click to expand...
Just take the easy way out, there's that lovely quote somewhere about freedom, security, the giving up of the one for the other, and what you end up with. ;)
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

AshburnerX said:
Yeah, this isn't going to last. The first time they use this against anyone who isn't white, there will be a discrimination lawsuit and this will get to the Supreme Court... who will likely reaffirm that you are not allowed to racially profile and that this is just a round about way to do it.
Click to expand...
Yup, cause people aren't still being racially profiled at airports...

It is more likely to be overturned when it IS used against a white person than a non-white person. It would cause way more of a stink that way.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
It amuses and confuses me that our president - who is a teacher of constitutional law - constantly does things that are against the constitution. This, the statement about the legality of killing American citizens, the continued suspension of habeas corpus of those in Guantanamo, and other such situations makes me wonder when if ever we'll get back to what the constitution really intended.
 
North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Staff member
Dave said:
It amuses and confuses me that our president - who is a teacher of constitutional law - constantly does things that are against the constitution. This, the statement about the legality of killing American citizens, the continued suspension of habeas corpus of those in Guantanamo, and other such situations makes me wonder when if ever we'll get back to what the constitution really intended.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't hold my breath. I mean, I stopped paying attention to what your politicians are doing a good while ago. It started getting just... horribly ugly.
 
Covar

Covar

Dave said:
It amuses and confuses me that our president - who is a teacher of constitutional law - constantly does things that are against the constitution. This, the statement about the legality of killing American citizens, the continued suspension of habeas corpus of those in Guantanamo, and other such situations makes me wonder when if ever we'll get back to what the constitution really intended.
Click to expand...
Dave it doesn't matter what the Constitution originally intended, You think the founding fathers could have conceived of things like jets or the internet?
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dave said:
It amuses and confuses me that our president - who is a teacher of constitutional law - constantly does things that are against the constitution.
Click to expand...
Because you don't have to actually agree with/be factually correct about the constitution to lecture about it at the University of Chicago.
 
Eriol

Eriol

Covar said:
Dave it doesn't matter what the Constitution originally intended, You think the founding fathers could have conceived of things like jets or the internet?
Click to expand...
'There are two kinds of fools: one says, "This is old, therefore it is good"; the other says, "This is new, therefore it is better."' - William Ralph Inge

Just because something is old doesn't mean it's good, but neither does that mean that it isn't good either. Don't use age of an idea to say it's invalid, nor use it to say that it must be right because it's lasted. If anything, what was intended is even more important IMO than what it actually says, but I may be in the minority there. Is the Canadian constitution "more valid" because it was updated in 1982, or not? I'd say not, but age has nothing to do with it (stupid clauses do, but that's another discussion).
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Eriol said:
'There are two kinds of fools: one says, "This is old, therefore it is good"; the other says, "This is new, therefore it is better."' - William Ralph Inge

Just because something is old doesn't mean it's good, but neither does that mean that it isn't good either. Don't use age of an idea to say it's invalid, nor use it to say that it must be right because it's lasted. If anything, what was intended is even more important IMO than what it actually says, but I may be in the minority there. Is the Canadian constitution "more valid" because it was updated in 1982, or not? I'd say not, but age has nothing to do with it (stupid clauses do, but that's another discussion).
Click to expand...
I think you may have missed his actual point - he was turning the common argument against the second amendment back on those who use it (that being "The founding fathers could never have conceived of machine guns and assault rifles, they just had muskets!").
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

I'm one of the biggest supporters of the current administration, and I still think the stance on "the war on terror" and any measure not being too extreme is total bullshit. I didn't support the wire tapping of the Bush administration, or the use of torture and suspension of Habeus Corpus, and I sure as hell don't support it now just because I agree with most of the presidents other policies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top