Grillick

"In furtherance of the performance of your duties" doesn't mean that everything you do makes your duties easier or more effective. All it means is that the action is taken while performing duties in an official capacity, and does not conflict with those duties. Because "not taking 30 seconds to answer a question" does not conflict with the duties of the CBP agents, it is done in furtherance of their duties. I'm not saying that the policy of the agency is correct or that I agree with it: merely that its existence does not violate the Constitution, and is certainly not evidence of a "Constitution-free zone." Okay, so I was correct in guessing that you have no idea what you're talking about: check. Alaska is not a state where marijuana is legal. Those states are Washington and Colorado. There is nothing special about these states that requires the federal government to respect their legalization of the drug. It is true that the federal government (through the Executive Branch) has elected not to enforce federal criminal law that conflicts with those states' laws, but it is not obligated to do so.

That's a myth. Texas was given the option to join as up to five states, but chose to be a single one. They're stuck with that choice, and have been for 150ish years now.

If it's done in furtherance of the performance of your duties as an FBI agent, yes.

I'm curious what part of the Texas Constitution you think demonstrates the error of my statement. Specifically, as Outburst pointed out, Article 1, Section 1 specifically states that Texas is subject to the Constitution of the United States. My extension that means that Texas is subject to Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, which states "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." So even if we take the Texas Constitution at face value, it recognizes that federal law is supreme over Texas law. rich, I never said that rights described in the U.S. Constitution will protect me from the laws of other nations: what I said is that they limit the powers of the U.S. government, even when the U.S. government is operating in another country. Obviously I can't rely on the First Amendment to protect me from the government of China when I am in China - that would be foolish. As for Texas (and Alaska, for that matter) being a "special state," I do not know what you mean by "special state," nor can I infer it from your context of my knowledge of U.S. law, because there is no such thing, as far as I am aware, of a state being anything but a state. There are certain subdivisions of the U.S. that are treated differently than states, but that is because they are not states. If you can provide support for your assertion that Texas is somehow entitled to treatment different from that given to the other 49 states, I would love to read it.

I currently live in Brooklyn, but I grew up in New Mexico.

No rich, the US Constitution is a limitation on the actions of the US government, and it applies worldwide. Other limits on the US government are concern for the sovereignty of other nations, and comity with those nations. Texas is not another nation. Its sovereignty is worth no notice, and comity does not apply. Texas is part of the US, and its law is subordinate to federal law.

I think this idea was implemented as color stock.

Federal law trumps state law. US Army in Afghanistan isn't allowed to shoot a mosque because that would violate US law. Do you really have such a poor understanding of the way the US government works, or are you just playing dumb?

Texas law does not affect the obligations of federal agents. Try again.

Democratically-elected is a bit of a stretch, I'd say. The 2010 elections were rampant with corruption, and the Yanukovych government was more kleptocratic than democratic.

That's just simply not the case. The responsibility for a citizen knowing the law that governs his destiny falls squarely on the individual citizen, not on the officials tasked with enforcing the law. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. If Texas chooses to require its law enforcement officials to inform people of the law, that's all well and good for Texas, but the Constitution has never (and should never) require it.

Okay, so now that I have some time at an actual desktop computer to draft something meaty, I'll explain why I think your original post was deliberately sensationalist and why this "problem" isn't really that much of a problem at all. Preliminarily, just so there is no confusion, what we're talking about is a specific part of the Fourth Amendment, which was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights in 1793, shortly after the formation of the Constitution. Specifically, we're talking about the following phrase: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[.]" There are a few issues we need to address to see if the CBP's actions conflict with the Constitution. First, are electronic devices included in "their persons, houses, papers, and effects"? There can be no question that the answer is yes. Second, do the CBP's actions constitute "searches and seizures"? Again, it is indisputable that the answer is yes. So all that remains is to determine whether it is reasonable for a federal agent tasked with monitoring the nation's borders and preventing the unwanted entry into or exit from this country of contraband, to examine the contents of an electronic device. It seems to me that it is, with or without probable cause (or even reasonable suspicion, which is a very low standard that is rarely missed), reasonable to examine the contents of any closed container entering or leaving the country as it does so. There is no such thing as a "Constitution-free zone." There is no such policy that describes a 100-mile area within the edges of the country (including coastline, which isn't a border) in which the CBP may do as they see fit without supervision. And there is no serious risk of harm from a policy that permits the CBP to, at their discretion, temporarily detain electronic devices to examine their contents for contraband. It has been the case for centuries that passage from one country to another was always at the discretion of those countries, and it has been the case for centuries that containers passing over the border could be searched for the purpose of enforcing immigration and customs laws. These electronic devices are no different. It is not unreasonable to expect international travelers who wish to keep their private affairs private to leave their electronic devices at home, rather than bringing them with them across borders. Even moreso because there is no reason to expect that, just because the United States will allow you to carry your device unmolested across the border, other nations would as well. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when crossing an international border. Full stop.

Wouldn't it be great if we spent money on our boarders, instead of wasting all out time and money on our borders? Oh, and I think we need a good world war. People in my generation are growing fat and complacent.

Have you ever been to a big and tall store? They specialize in clothes for big men and for tall men. I'm quite sure you'd be able to find some jeans in 36" waist, 42" inseam. I've seen them.

Sounds like you need to start shopping at big and tall stores, sir.

I do not understand this comment. Both "they" and "it" are used without reference to an antecedent that they take the place of, so I do not understand. Can you please elaborate?

1 Cor., unless I am sorely mistaken, is an abbreviation that stands for "Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians." Therefore, I renew my request for a citation that demonstrates that "Jesus calls homosexuality an abomination" (your words). As I said, Paul was not a Christian: he was the First Troll. Even if I accept that he was a Christian, though, he is certainly not Jesus.

He is? I didn't see Thanatos exercising his monopoly over the legitimate use of force to quell the expression of an opinion. It looked to me like one arrogant blowhard telling another arrogant blowhard that his opinion is worth squat. And that, my friend, is what America is all about!

After reading the District Court's opinion, I have to say that I think you're getting all worked up about nothing. I'll detail my specific reasons later, and would be happy to send a PDF of the opinion to anyone who PMs me their email address.

Citation needed. The only part of the New Testament that discusses homosexuality, to my knowledge, are the monstrosities penned by the First Troll.

But that's not possible, because God wrote the Bible, and God created everything, so sure God was "in the know back then." Or are you a Christian who doesn't believe the Bible is the Word of God?

Coach, That has happened. There is a difference.

You're well-educated in the medical field, but you think science is eh? I'm sensing some inconsistency...

Citation needed. The only case I'm familiar with dealing with this issue was a federal case that found the government's practice unconstitutional, at least as applied to that particular defendant. That hardly constitutes a "constitution-free zone," which is what I was referring to as a myth.

Please explain how cancer works. I'd love to hear what you have to say. Be as detailed as possible.