If Wild Cobra sees fit, you must acquit.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Printable View
If Wild Cobra sees fit, you must acquit.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
ever wonder if the cop was lying? maybe he just wanted to fuck with cuz you're black, and gave you some bullshit about "matching description" as cover.Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
He's white. Therefore, that never happens to anyone, ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!
the need to sidestep 4th amendment rights in an airport pretty clearly came from 9/11.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Not sure why most of you are ok with that but throw a hissy fit about a DPS officer possibly looking in your bag.
without probable cause, he doesn't have that right.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
nope. but when boarding a plane they can randomly search your person.Quote:
If you get stopped for jaywalking, should a cop be able to search your person?
did the government pay for your airplane ticket?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
probable causeQuote:
Does that mean the government can, say, rifle through my pockets while I am walking down the sidewalk, if they paid for the sidewalk?
which goes back to my airport question.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
you didn't really read the rest of the thread, did you....
imo, I think an airport would be considered less 'public property' than a highway would.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
I agree that it's BS as well.Quote:
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some 'implied consent to be searched' at an airport as well, held up by some court ruling. I think that's BS as well... airport security is a joke.
Edit: I see FromWay already posted it. Nice to know my guesses were correct. :)
how is warrantless wiretapping reasonable, but car searches are not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
because private property is not public propertyQuote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
with you, apparently at reasonable warrantless wiretapsQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I have addressed this, maybe no complete enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
First of all, a warrant is an order to take action. Not permission. Probable cause is the only requirement for an officer to act without a warrant. Laws have been enacted to try to keep law enforcement from overstepping their bounds. When it comes to orders coming from the executor of law, i.e, the president... he does not fall under the same laws. He only falls under the constitution. The only test then is if it is reasonable or not.
Please explain to me why you think a warrant is required? Look at how the punctuation breaks up the 4th amendment. It is reasonable to trace associations and conversations with known terrorists. It is not reasonable to search someones vehicle because of a seatbelt law.
Therefore Barack Obama -- who is a socialist tyrant -- ought to be allowed to spy on Americans without any probable cause and to torture people at his discretion.
Right.. how many NSL requests got denied? Oh wait, none of them? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
That is not correct at all. The FISA law was enacted *specifically* to oversee any and all surveillance, including those coming from the executive. As a matter of fact, the reason the FISA law was created to begin with had to do with Nixon ordering spying on certain members of the media and population. The law was supposed to prevent this from ever happening again, as it had exclusive rights for allowing domestic wiretaps. That is actually why the NSA wiretaps were entirely illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Utter bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Law cannot supersede the constitution. The president is bound to protect this nation and the understood executive powers are not spelled out, but from common law. As long as the president does not violate the constitution, he can direct and delegate actions that others cannot.
Except there's no such wording in the US Constitution that allows the executive to break the law. There would be no need for all these silly lawyer memos otherwise. Furthermore, the limits on execute power over national security are so damn clear, that the executive alone can't even start a war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
As much as you like to believe that the executive is above the Constitution, that is not the case AT ALL.
The Constitution is largely meaningless if Article II powers can be wielded in spite of Article I acts.
Cobra, could Congress just defy an Act of the President? If the President is (as you say) constitutionally unencumbered by the acts of Congress (or presumably, the Supreme Court), then what checks and balances could really exist in our government.
John Yoo should be giving you a call to find support to further expand Presidential power.
It's absolutely utterly absurd to argue that the President is, in essence, bound by no law other than the Constitution.
And Blake:
I don't think that the permisisbility of airport searches is purely a post-9/11 creation. People flying on planes have been subject to at least some degree of examination at airports for as long as I've been flying, which is now about 30 years. And I think that baseline examination can still be constitutionally justified through the administrative search doctrine. Certainly, the initial scrutiny has grown -- at least to some extent -- but I think the extent of the search still comports with the administrative means it seeks to achieve. And, from a practical standpoint, I suppose those who fly are less willing to complain about the intrusion of that warrantless search because it offers some assurance of safety and seems less harassing than a warrantless vehicle search on the side of a highway.
The Courts that have dealt with airport searches -- including the 9th Circuit most recently -- have concluded that implied consent IS NOT a basis for upholding the search. Thus, it doesn't matter that the airport is publicly-owned or that people volunteer to fly. What matters, apparently, is that there is a specific administrative goal to be achieved by the search -- as I said before, a binary answer about contraband and misconduct.
Certainly, though, we're dealing with a judicially-created justification for avoiding the warrant requirement in that circumstance, and it's understandable that some might find the rationale somewhat flimsy and the distinctions a bit too forced.
FYI - recent ruling by a "secret" federal appeals court......Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Quote:
Court Affirms Wiretapping Without Warrants
By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: January 15, 2009
WASHINGTON — In a rare public ruling, a secret federal appeals court has said telecommunications companies must cooperate with the government to intercept international phone calls and e-mail of American citizens suspected of being spies or terrorists.
The ruling came in a case involving an unidentified company’s challenge to 2007 legislation that expanded the president’s legal power to conduct wiretapping without warrants for intelligence purposes.
But the ruling, handed down in August 2008 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and made public Thursday, did not directly address whether President Bush was within his constitutional powers in ordering domestic wiretapping without warrants, without first getting Congressional approval, after the terrorist attacks of 2001..............
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/wa...tml?_r=1&fta=y
I guess that settles that. Warrantless wiretaps are apparently ok in the name of national security.
It isn't. Look for United States v. Medina-Mojica. That was back in 1999.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
I really just don't get the big deal in searching a car if you get pulled over for a traffic violation. The only problem I see are the cops who are doing it. Are they doing it to harass you or are they doing because they have a reason, such as smell weed, see a knife,driver acting like a nut. There are actually some good cops out there. I know there are some bad ones and to me this is why people have a problem with this. Remember if you are not breaking the law u have nothing to worry about. Just be cool,answer the questions and move on. If you think u were being picked on file a complaint. Not a big deal.
no doubt. The x-ray on the luggage has been around seemingly almost forever...Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
but pulling people aside at random times and doing more intensive searches on their person has not been. I very clearly remember the difference in airport security from summer of 2001 compared to summer 2002.
eh. I still think it's inconsisent when talking about 4th amendment rights...Quote:
And I think that baseline examination can still be constitutionally justified through the administrative search doctrine. Certainly, the initial scrutiny has grown -- at least to some extent -- but I think the extent of the search still comports with the administrative means it seeks to achieve. And, from a practical standpoint, I suppose those who fly are less willing to complain about the intrusion of that warrantless search because it offers some assurance of safety and seems less harassing than a warrantless vehicle search on the side of a highway.
The Courts that have dealt with airport searches -- including the 9th Circuit most recently -- have concluded that implied consent IS NOT a basis for upholding the search. Thus, it doesn't matter that the airport is publicly-owned or that people volunteer to fly. What matters, apparently, is that there is a specific administrative goal to be achieved by the search -- as I said before, a binary answer about contraband and misconduct.
Certainly, though, we're dealing with a judicially-created justification for avoiding the warrant requirement in that circumstance, and it's understandable that some might find the rationale somewhat flimsy and the distinctions a bit too forced.
...but again, I will defer to the courts rulings in the hopes that they are smarter than me. :lol
I don't get the deal either, as in "if you aren't doing anything wrong, then what are you worried about?"....Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
but if the courts think that it's a violation of 4th amendment rights, then there's pretty much nothing else to say.