WISD0MTREE Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Right now, I have no Constitution, like 2/3 other Americans. Should this be allowed? Should it be less? Should it begin 12 miles out to sea (all international waters) and end at land? Discuss. Not spam. I just posted in another thread and thought that it should have it's own thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Pickles Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 that scares me quite a bit Quote I am Drew Pickles, leader of the ultra swell nation of Drewland. You can never get this, you can never get this, la la la la Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moloko Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 All I know is that you all'd better keep your Nugget close and your sister closer when the DHS comes a'knockin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 1 EO could make international airports count as a border. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 They do count as a border. But that map in the link in the original post is a complete myth. Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted February 28, 2014 Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 They do count as a border. But that map in the link in the original post is a complete myth. *cough cough federal judge used that in a federal case cough* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikol Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 *cough cough federal judge used that in a federal case cough* Really? Oh jezz, sometimes I really do feel bad for the colonists. Come to Europe, we have codified civil rights and nice alcohol/women. Quote Ikol, Proud member of Terminus Est. Moderator of http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticsandWar/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 *cough cough federal judge used that in a federal case cough* 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. Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted February 28, 2014 Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 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. I'll find the source later today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted February 28, 2014 Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 http://rt.com/usa/court-upholds-laptop-border-searches-041/ http://www.dailypaul.com/309181/judge-reaffirms-constitution-free-zones-100-miles-inside-us-borders http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2014/01/01/judge-reaffirms-constitution-free-zones-100-miles-inside-u-s-borders/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-upholds-search-of-passengers-laptops/2013/12/31/f5b39022-726a-11e3-8b3f-b1666705ca3b_story.html http://abovethelaw.com/tag/judge-edward-korman/ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/business/judge-upholds-us-right-to-search-devices-at-border.html?_r=0 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/13/constitution-free-zones-controversial-obama-administration-policy/ http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/090710-aclu-other-groups-sue-us.html If you think that the judge doesn't exist: https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/content/judge-edward-r-korman (Double post to allow him to see that I replied, and isn't restricted in the rules.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 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. Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 1, 2014 Author Share Posted March 1, 2014 Either way, they (CBP, ICE, government, police, etc.) are in the wrong. If it's false (100 mile zone), then: Police are required to explain the people the laws (in Texas, maybe all of America) If true (100 mile zone), then: Unconstitutional And also if it's true (100 mile zone), then Obama needs mental help. We had this fence PLAN that would help with the illegal problem. Instead, 100 mile constitution free zone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moloko Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Either way, they are in the wrong. If it's false, then: Police are required to explain the people the laws (in Texas, maybe all of America) If true, then: Unconstitutional And also if it's true, then Obama needs mental help. We had this fence PLAN that would help with the illegal problem. Instead, 100 mile constitution free zone. I'm all for the fence. And open borders with Canada too, while we're at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 1, 2014 Author Share Posted March 1, 2014 Only $4.1 billion and a ton of politicians away... dat fence ;( Y...you can donate to the state fence... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Either way, they are in the wrong. If it's false, then: Police are required to explain the people the laws (in Texas, maybe all of America) If true, then: Unconstitutional And also if it's true, then Obama needs mental help. We had this fence PLAN that would help with the illegal problem. Instead, 100 mile constitution free zone. 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? Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 1, 2014 Author Share Posted March 1, 2014 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? Fixed. I edited, so you might have to scroll up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 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. Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 2, 2014 Author Share Posted March 2, 2014 Either way, they (CBP, ICE, government, police, etc.) are in the wrong. If it's false (100 mile zone), then: Police are required to explain the people the laws (in Texas, maybe all of America) Still applies. They should probably answer questions made by collage kids and people in media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 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. Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 2, 2014 Author Share Posted March 2, 2014 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. They are in Texas, so they are required, but they aren't. You just proved my point. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Texas law does not affect the obligations of federal agents. Try again. Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 Texas law does not affect the obligations of federal agents. Try again. Operating on Texas soil. US Army in Afghanistan isn't allowed to shoot a mosque. Try again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 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? Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 ok so it would violate both us and afghanistan law.it is a religious thing. lol you must not have paid any attention kids ok world lesson. our american rights do not follow you to other countries. afghanistan religious law says you ain't allowed to shoot at mosque. Quote i'm a writer not a fighter. à¸à¹‡à¹‡à¹‡à¹‡à¹‡à¹‡à¹‡à¹‡à¹‡à¹‡à¹‡à¹‡à¹‡Ê•â€¢Í¡á´¥â€¢Ê” à¸à¹‰à¹‰à¹‰à¹‰à¹‰à¹‰à¹‰à¹‰à¹‰à¹‰à¹‰ (that is supposed to look like a cute polar bear) "you know what judge they say justice is blind i sure hope it ain't deaf." keeping the faith. Billy Joel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 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. Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.