4 ms·

Does this apply to the "special Constitution zone" that intrudes 100 miles inland from the US border? Doesn't matter if it's constitutional or not if you're in

Does this apply to the "special Constitution zone" that intrudes 100 miles inland from the US border? Doesn't matter if it's constitutional or not if you're in a no-constitution zone.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Hmm. Has the Supreme Court ever ruled that the "special Constitution zone" was constitutional? Because, on its face, it looks like it's not...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Does this apply to the "special Constitution zone" that intrudes 100 miles inland from the US border? This is specifically about border searches, so, insofar as such a zone exists (the description is hyperbolic and more useful for motivating activism that any kind of analytical application), yes. > Doesn't matter if it's constitutional or not if you're in a no-constitution zone. There is no such thing. There is an executive-asserted 100 mile zone (statute only says a reasonable distance, and AFAIK courts have not ruled on actual boundaries) from the border in which federal officials can conduct warrantless searches of vehicles to identify people without legal permission to be in the country.
- akersten 7y ago
  > There is no such thing. No, you admit there is such a thing, you just call it something differently. We're clearly talking about the same thing, whatever we choose to call it, it exists. What you call "executive asserted zone in which [the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply]", I call a "no Constitution zone". It's clearer. As far as activism goes, the way I see it: we can either use plain language to convey a pretty good approximation of the situation, and help people understand the crazy state of people's rights at the border, or dress it up in business language like a government-sanctioned PR release and lose a listener's interest immediately. Someone probably learned about the zone from this very thread, which wouldn't exist had I not been provocative. And is it really provocative to point out that something's not right?
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > What you call "executive asserted zone in which [the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply]” The editorial insertion is not correct, and is the source of the problem. Neither the statute (which is ambiguous as to exact geographic extent) nor the executive interpretation asserts the inapplicability of the Constitutional protection against unreasonable searches within the zone, it authorizes an extremely narrow category of warrantless searches (the courts have consistently held that warrantless searches can be reasonable, and that statutory authorization for a sufficiently narrow and appropriate purpose is a significant factor in favor of finding a warrantless search reasonable; there is no serious debate over whether what the statute seeks to authorize is Constitutionally appropriate and within some geographic boundaries, the entire debate, after you get past the hyperbolic posturing, is over two questions: whether 100 miles is more than is reasonable, and whether the failure of the statute to explicitly say a reasonable boundary impermissibly delegates the boundary-setting to the executive.) > As far as activism goes, the way I see it: we can either use plain language to convey a pretty good approximation of the situation It's not a good approximation of the situation, as taking it as even an approximation suggests things like your upthread misapprehension that it would be germane to a search of data on devices rather than a search of vehicles for unauthorized immigrants. Look, I agree with what the ACLU is seeking to acheive with it's hyperbolic portrayal and even think that most uses that the ACLU makes of that portrayal are warranted for that purpose (and I think both that 100 air miles is too great a distance and the failure of Congress to set explicit boundaries makes the statute unreasonable.) But it's not even remotely a good approximation of the actual situation, except perhaps in the narrow context of discussion narrowly focussed on immigration enforcement.

Does this apply to the "special Constitution zone" that intrudes 100 miles inland from the US border? Doesn't matter if it's constitutional or not if you're in a no-constitution zone.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

Hmm. Has the Supreme Court ever ruled that the "special Constitution zone" was constitutional? Because, on its face, it looks like it's not...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Does this apply to the "special Constitution zone" that intrudes 100 miles inland from the US border? This is specifically about border searches, so, insofar as such a zone exists (the description is hyperbolic and more useful for motivating activism that any kind of analytical application), yes. > Doesn't matter if it's constitutional or not if you're in a no-constitution zone. There is no such thing. There is an executive-asserted 100 mile zone (statute only says a reasonable distance, and AFAIK courts have not ruled on actual boundaries) from the border in which federal officials can conduct warrantless searches of vehicles to identify people without legal permission to be in the country.

akersten 7y ago
> There is no such thing. No, you admit there is such a thing, you just call it something differently. We're clearly talking about the same thing, whatever we choose to call it, it exists. What you call "executive asserted zone in which [the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply]", I call a "no Constitution zone". It's clearer. As far as activism goes, the way I see it: we can either use plain language to convey a pretty good approximation of the situation, and help people understand the crazy state of people's rights at the border, or dress it up in business language like a government-sanctioned PR release and lose a listener's interest immediately. Someone probably learned about the zone from this very thread, which wouldn't exist had I not been provocative. And is it really provocative to point out that something's not right?
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > What you call "executive asserted zone in which [the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply]” The editorial insertion is not correct, and is the source of the problem. Neither the statute (which is ambiguous as to exact geographic extent) nor the executive interpretation asserts the inapplicability of the Constitutional protection against unreasonable searches within the zone, it authorizes an extremely narrow category of warrantless searches (the courts have consistently held that warrantless searches can be reasonable, and that statutory authorization for a sufficiently narrow and appropriate purpose is a significant factor in favor of finding a warrantless search reasonable; there is no serious debate over whether what the statute seeks to authorize is Constitutionally appropriate and within some geographic boundaries, the entire debate, after you get past the hyperbolic posturing, is over two questions: whether 100 miles is more than is reasonable, and whether the failure of the statute to explicitly say a reasonable boundary impermissibly delegates the boundary-setting to the executive.) > As far as activism goes, the way I see it: we can either use plain language to convey a pretty good approximation of the situation It's not a good approximation of the situation, as taking it as even an approximation suggests things like your upthread misapprehension that it would be germane to a search of data on devices rather than a search of vehicles for unauthorized immigrants. Look, I agree with what the ACLU is seeking to acheive with it's hyperbolic portrayal and even think that most uses that the ACLU makes of that portrayal are warranted for that purpose (and I think both that 100 air miles is too great a distance and the failure of Congress to set explicit boundaries makes the statute unreasonable.) But it's not even remotely a good approximation of the actual situation, except perhaps in the narrow context of discussion narrowly focussed on immigration enforcement.