SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Congress just passed, and Trump signed, a law that makes all properties adjacent to the rail system operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Constitution free zones.
From TFA on zerohedge.com:
"In performing its duties, the Commission, through its Board or designated employees or agents, may: Enter upon the WMATA Rail System and, upon reasonable notice and a finding by the chief executive officer that a need exists, upon any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System, including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government, for the purpose of making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing as the Commission may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this MSC Compact, and such entry shall not be deemed a trespass."
As we all know, the standard in the 4th Amendment is a particularized warrant based on probable cause, "reasonable notice and need" as determined by the cops (i.e. agency chief), is not the same thing at all.
We already have constitution free zones within 100 100 miles of any border, and this provides a convenient framework to do a similar thing along any rail line (or road) so the Feds can liberate the center of the country from any form of Constitutional protection. Anyway ... the 4th Amendment is already dead at this point, but its piecemeal demise should provide a useful education for those clamoring for the demise of the 1st.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday August 28 2017, @12:00AM (7 children)
The former is an emergency situation (like Texas, right now), and the latter is not. I believe the emergency would over-ride other considerations.
I hope that makes some kind of sense...deep into the after work brain cell executio.....uh, what?
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 4, Informative) by wisnoskij on Monday August 28 2017, @01:32AM (5 children)
No, it has nothing to do with emergency at all. The 4th Amendment has to do with searches and seizure of citizens by the government, specifically by police forces, firefighters are not searching or seizing. The constitution does not prevent anyone other than police from entering your home.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday August 28 2017, @03:05AM
That's basically what I said. I didn't equate the two.
I replied to the apparent equivalency of Avocados to Oranges, (I dislike Apples), not to a constitutional specific. His qualifier did not serve to remove the equating in his original statement asking if firefighters would be held to the same standards as a train inspector.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday August 28 2017, @03:09AM (3 children)
There are emergencies where the cops can enter a home without a warrant. Chasing a murderer is one example.
The problem with the 4th are the weasel words, mostly "reasonable". And when you consider how the 1st and 2nd are violated without any weasel words, expecting the government to follow the others...
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday August 28 2017, @02:22PM (2 children)
"Reasonable" is defined in a crystal clear manner by:
Unreasonable is anything else.
Otherwise, the only way the 4th can be read is as "here's some stuff you can ignore whenever you like." Which is absurd. Not that absurdity stops the oath violators in the various legislatures and the judiciary.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday August 28 2017, @03:40PM
I don't disagree with you, but I'm not a Judge. When I see some of the decisions of the American Supreme court and how they can twist around plain English. The 1st and 2nd are the litmus tests as they're so simple without any leeway. "Congress can't" "The people have the right".
Then there are the established workarounds such as asking industry to do the censorship.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday August 29 2017, @12:44PM
Not really. This government was never intended to be a single monolithic entity -- it couldn't be read that way because there is no single "you" to ignore that text. Our government was intended to be three separate branches in a constant battle for power and control. The Executive branch would be eager to conduct the search and claim absolutely anything as "reasonable" as you say, but the Judicial branch was supposed to be equally eager to find a reason to slap them down. And the Judicial branch would be the ones deciding what "reasonable" actually means.
Unfortunately, that's no longer the case...now it's all just one big club.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday August 28 2017, @09:29AM
So there you are then. There are already situations where the Fourth Ammendment seemingly doesn't apply as some people seem to think it does, which shows that it's not the broad inalienable protection some people seem to think it is.
Same with the second. Forget the "well-regulated militia" bit for a moment and it says everyone can have a gun. Doesn't say anything about permits or that felons can't have one. Or that rocket launchers don't count.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk