3 ms·

> The amendment repeatedly says "State", it isn't talking about the Federal government. True, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly decided that the 5th amendme

> The amendment repeatedly says "State", it isn't talking about the Federal government. True, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly decided that the 5th amendment imposes both due process and equal protection requirements on the federal govt, just as the 14th imposes them on the states. E.g., see Lawrence v. Texas. > "...applying border controls is pretty well established as due process." This is a pretty vague statement, but it not really true in any sense. The constitutionality of our current border control practices is still being vigorously litigated.

maxerickson 9y ago
Which physical border search has been ruled unconstitutional?
- nate_meurer 9y ago
  United States v. Cotterman, for example, declared a major piece of CBP's policy (forensic examination without probable cause) unconstitutional. However you seem a bit confused. You started talking about due process, but now you appear to be shifting the goalposts to 4th amendment issues. Your statement, "applying border controls is pretty well established as due process", doesn't really make sense. Due process is only one of the many thorny issues that embroil the border search exception, and the exception's constitutionality along due process lines has not been decided by the supreme court one way or the other. Perhaps I should ask you, how did you arrive at "pretty well established"? Can you provide a bit of case history?
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Aliens are detained upon arrival and may be detained at length. If the arbitrary permitting of entry that follows that detention wasn't considered due process we wouldn't have border controls. My other response was a somewhat sarcastic reply to The constitutionality of our current border control practices is still being vigorously litigated.. It's the details that are being litigated, not the overall detention and search of foreign nationals.

maxerickson 9y ago

Which physical border search has been ruled unconstitutional?

nate_meurer 9y ago
United States v. Cotterman, for example, declared a major piece of CBP's policy (forensic examination without probable cause) unconstitutional. However you seem a bit confused. You started talking about due process, but now you appear to be shifting the goalposts to 4th amendment issues. Your statement, "applying border controls is pretty well established as due process", doesn't really make sense. Due process is only one of the many thorny issues that embroil the border search exception, and the exception's constitutionality along due process lines has not been decided by the supreme court one way or the other. Perhaps I should ask you, how did you arrive at "pretty well established"? Can you provide a bit of case history?
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Aliens are detained upon arrival and may be detained at length. If the arbitrary permitting of entry that follows that detention wasn't considered due process we wouldn't have border controls. My other response was a somewhat sarcastic reply to The constitutionality of our current border control practices is still being vigorously litigated.. It's the details that are being litigated, not the overall detention and search of foreign nationals.