Reply With Quote
The checkpoints will continue until morale improves.
One thing is what certain people might want, and what's possible at any given political time. I don't think we're at a political moment in the US where a change to the Cons ution is feasible.
What Dems or Republicans want is relatively irrelevant if it's not realistically achievable.
The checkpoints will continue until morale improves.
to the stranger, only?
Capitalism that Americans have been brainwashed, by Capitalists, into venerating unquestionably is fundamentally cruel system.
we were talking about border enforcement, not capitalism writ large
what ruling(s) are you referring to?
there's the sadism I was talking about
btw, Spurtacular, it's not like prior rulings have made CBP and ICE invulnerable to legal challenge -- endemic corruption and shoddy practices pretty much ensure the cases will keep coming.
"CBP and ICE invulnerable to legal challenge"
SCOTUS has ruled LE goons are, almost totally, while performing their duties.
human beings who win claims will get paid off in $Ms and the CPB/ICE Schutzstaffel brutality, cruelty, inhumanity will continue unabated.
Best! "No Thanks" US Checkpoints VS Law knowing citizens!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KXmciBvCQw
Eyup. Never should have allowed this.
yep, obviously the Repugs went along, nary a peep, with Obama's immigrant brutality, as we can see, they have increased it.
I don't memorize cases; but I do know the SC has ruled that checkpoints are Cons utional. Obviously, they just threw out the 4th amendment on that one.
Natsec exception to control the borders. Goes to immigration. I suppose we can't have it both ways.
Can have it both ways; Cons ution was a do ent for the citizens by the citizens. Liberties were not extended to people without the buy in.
The problem is you have bad citizens doing bad things that hurt other citizens. Somebody (a citizen) drives through with a bomb, and there's no way to search them, you have a serious problem.
It's really no different than the 1st amendment exception on yelling bomb on a crowded area.
Cons utional rights are not absolute, they can be regulated. Obviously, the bar has to be really high and the demonstrable need important. Natsec has largely always cleared that bar.
That's a silly example. If feds have reason to suspect a bomb, probable cause allows for searches. Non probable cause searches under the pretense of security is a violation of liberty. I would say no searches without probable cause is pretty absolute. Some assholes decided they could rule against the Cons ution.
The problem is that the government can't go all around the world looking for those assholes to see if they're building a bomb. So there's no way to have probable cause over somebody you know very little or nothing about coming back in.
So here you have two competing interests: one from the person being secure in their persons vs the government interest in providing security to it's citizens. The burden of a non-intrusive search is minimal compared to the benefits of not having mass murder.
That said, don't get me wrong, I do think it's ok to check at the borders, but some of these places are way away from there, and the searches have gone from non-intrusive to very intrusive. When corruption is also rampant, it's a recipe for disaster.
But, as I said, this is an oversight problem, not a legality problem. There should be better oversight and the citizens should have a viable avenue to register and contest abusive behavior. ie: it's ridiculous that cameras are prohibited in these areas. When transparency is lacking, corruption festers.
Well, the feds better raid your garage; you could be building a bomb. Here you are talking about it and all. And I'd say when liberty is lacking, corruption festers. Founding Fathers were smart dudes. Don't get me wrong; many were in favor of a fair amount of transparency too; but liberty was always the trump card.
apparently you prefer to wave at them from afar.
are you afraid your impartiality will be compromised by actually knowing what you are talking about?
I told you the basic reality. Don't get throw a tizzy that I won't spoonfeed you the rest, little fella.
demands clarification, offers none.
Seems like just an inconvenience to me. I don't see a problem with it. I'll guess when you fly so much you're accustomed to being searched all the time and spending an hour or two in customs now and again.
The exception is limited in scope to certain amount of miles from the border. Otherwise, it wouldn't be an exception. Unfortunately, one right is not more important than another, this always been like that. Part of the SCOTUS job is to determine how to balance when competing interests are at play.
The Founding Fathers lived in a different world, that had different needs. While it's true that liberty and freedom is an universal concept, they didn't really tackle freedom for slaves for example (neither did the Bible, which also was written when the world looked different than it does now).
I am also a guy that prefers freedom over searches and a nanny government, even if that has a real, measurable cost in potential human lives. Some people would argue that's the price to pay for freedom. So I am actually sympathetic to your point.
But I also understand where the status quo comes from, how we got there, and how the vast majority of people are knocking at the govnerment's door when some tragic event happens.
And BTW, you could dismiss the explosive example as unlikely, but a person moving in a bunch of kilos of cocaine into a neighborhood can also have drastic consequences for a lot of citizens. So you don't even need an extreme case to make that point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions