4 ms·

Im with most of the tenets of the post, however its worth noting the US Government and its member states tend to generally ignore the fourth amendment unless yo

Im with most of the tenets of the post, however its worth noting the US Government and its member states tend to generally ignore the fourth amendment unless you've got the cash to file a lawsuit. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/removing-a-gps-tracking-device-from-your-car-isnt-theft-court-rules/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/removing-a-gps-t... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/michael-bloombergs-stop-and-frisk-violates-the-fourth-amendment https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/michael-bloombergs-stop-a... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://reason.com/2019/09/10/the-supreme-courts-next-big-fourth-amendment-case/ https://reason.com/2019/09/10/the-supreme-courts-next-big-fo... and lets not forget, the star of the 21st century... https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/nsa-continues-violate-americans-internet-privacy https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surv...

zeveb 7y ago
And of course there's also Wickard v. Filburn, which held that feeding cattle in one state grain raised in the same state is somehow interstate commerce, and Baker v. Carr, Gray v. Sanders & Reynolds v. Sims which combined prevent states from having a republican form of government patterned after the federal model. And there are the drug laws, which are mostly although not entirely unconstitutional. And then there are the many state and local firearms laws which violate the Second Amendment. And there's Maryland v. Craig, which guts the right to confront one's accusers. And then there are all the executive departments with no authorisation in the Constitution (e.g. the Department of Education), which IMHO violate the Ninth Amendment. Sadly, it has been a long, long time since 'this should not be done because it violates the Constitution' has been persuasive. The Constitution's not perfect, but it's better than what we have now.
- alexmingoia 7y ago
  Also almost all immigration restrictions like work and residency visas are unconstitutional, as the constitution only grants the Federal government power to determine rules for naturalization. To quote Justice William Rehnquist: “one of the greatest 'fictions' of our federal system is that the Congress exercises only those powers delegated to it, while the remainder are reserved to the States or to the people. The manner in which this Court has construed the Commerce Clause amply illustrates the extent of this fiction. Although it is clear that the people, through the States, delegated authority to Congress to 'regulate Commerce ... among the several States' (Commerce Clause), one could easily get the sense from this Court's opinions that the federal system exists only at the sufferance of Congress."
leggomylibro 7y ago
It's incredible how far we've fallen; the border exception is particularly terrible. I was once driving along I-10, which is an 8-lane / 80mph interstate. CBP had blockaded the entire road, and were pulling every single car and truck off to be questioned and searched. My truck had a canopy with heavily-tinted windows that could have easily fit a few people, but I don't "look foreign", so they waved me through without even glancing at my ID or vehicle. From the people who had been pulled off, it looked like their job was to hassle people with brown skin. I can't fathom how it isn't a violation of the Constitution to (ostensibly) search every individual driving along a major highway. What ever happened to 'probabale cause'? Is living in the US considered evidence of committing a crime in the US nowadays?
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  Within 100 mi of a border it doesn’t apply
  - leggomylibro 7y ago
    I know that's what the courts say, I just think it's insane and indefensible. And that erodes my trust in our judicial system and my respect for our institutions. Or it would, if I had any left. If the law doesn't apply equally to everyone, it's not a legal system so much as a way to selectively keep people down.
  - colonavilus 7y ago
    https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/100mile.png https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/100mile.p... Nice constitutional rights you got there, it would be a shame if they didn't apply to two thirds of citizens.
  - vageli 7y ago
    Funny how the document itself doesn't provide for that limitation explicitly.
  - 40four 7y ago
    I don't live near a border, I had never heard of this before, and I found a nice description on the ACLU website. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone/ https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone/ It appears the 4th amendment certainly still applies in the 100 mile zone, and if it did not that would be insane. According to that page, 2/3 of the population lives inside the 100 mile zone. The CBP officers do apparently have more leeway as far as detaining a person roadside (see 'reasonable suspicion'), or boarding a bus/ train and the like, but probable cause is still required to search a vehicle, or arrest a suspect. "An immigration officer also cannot search you or your belongings without either “probable cause” or your consent. If an agent asks you if they can search your belongings, you have the right to say no." In the past, I have successfully denied an officers request to search my vehicle at a routine traffic stop. He backed off immediately. It is easier said than done, being stopped by law enforcement is always stressful. But simply saying in a polite manner, 'No, sir. I prefer you didn't search the vehicle', is one of our greatest tools the 4th amendments provides us. Officers WILL ask and try to gain consent if at all possible. I suspect that most of the vehicles the other commenter saw being searched by the roaming patrol, either did not know they could say no, or did not have the nerve to say no in a tense stressful situation.

zeveb 7y ago

And of course there's also Wickard v. Filburn, which held that feeding cattle in one state grain raised in the same state is somehow interstate commerce, and Baker v. Carr, Gray v. Sanders & Reynolds v. Sims which combined prevent states from having a republican form of government patterned after the federal model. And there are the drug laws, which are mostly although not entirely unconstitutional. And then there are the many state and local firearms laws which violate the Second Amendment. And there's Maryland v. Craig, which guts the right to confront one's accusers. And then there are all the executive departments with no authorisation in the Constitution (e.g. the Department of Education), which IMHO violate the Ninth Amendment. Sadly, it has been a long, long time since 'this should not be done because it violates the Constitution' has been persuasive. The Constitution's not perfect, but it's better than what we have now.

alexmingoia 7y ago
Also almost all immigration restrictions like work and residency visas are unconstitutional, as the constitution only grants the Federal government power to determine rules for naturalization. To quote Justice William Rehnquist: “one of the greatest 'fictions' of our federal system is that the Congress exercises only those powers delegated to it, while the remainder are reserved to the States or to the people. The manner in which this Court has construed the Commerce Clause amply illustrates the extent of this fiction. Although it is clear that the people, through the States, delegated authority to Congress to 'regulate Commerce ... among the several States' (Commerce Clause), one could easily get the sense from this Court's opinions that the federal system exists only at the sufferance of Congress."

leggomylibro 7y ago

It's incredible how far we've fallen; the border exception is particularly terrible. I was once driving along I-10, which is an 8-lane / 80mph interstate. CBP had blockaded the entire road, and were pulling every single car and truck off to be questioned and searched. My truck had a canopy with heavily-tinted windows that could have easily fit a few people, but I don't "look foreign", so they waved me through without even glancing at my ID or vehicle. From the people who had been pulled off, it looked like their job was to hassle people with brown skin. I can't fathom how it isn't a violation of the Constitution to (ostensibly) search every individual driving along a major highway. What ever happened to 'probabale cause'? Is living in the US considered evidence of committing a crime in the US nowadays?

selimthegrim 7y ago
Within 100 mi of a border it doesn’t apply
- leggomylibro 7y ago
  I know that's what the courts say, I just think it's insane and indefensible. And that erodes my trust in our judicial system and my respect for our institutions. Or it would, if I had any left. If the law doesn't apply equally to everyone, it's not a legal system so much as a way to selectively keep people down.
- colonavilus 7y ago
  https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/100mile.png https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/100mile.p... Nice constitutional rights you got there, it would be a shame if they didn't apply to two thirds of citizens.
- vageli 7y ago
  Funny how the document itself doesn't provide for that limitation explicitly.
- 40four 7y ago
  I don't live near a border, I had never heard of this before, and I found a nice description on the ACLU website. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone/ https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone/ It appears the 4th amendment certainly still applies in the 100 mile zone, and if it did not that would be insane. According to that page, 2/3 of the population lives inside the 100 mile zone. The CBP officers do apparently have more leeway as far as detaining a person roadside (see 'reasonable suspicion'), or boarding a bus/ train and the like, but probable cause is still required to search a vehicle, or arrest a suspect. "An immigration officer also cannot search you or your belongings without either “probable cause” or your consent. If an agent asks you if they can search your belongings, you have the right to say no." In the past, I have successfully denied an officers request to search my vehicle at a routine traffic stop. He backed off immediately. It is easier said than done, being stopped by law enforcement is always stressful. But simply saying in a polite manner, 'No, sir. I prefer you didn't search the vehicle', is one of our greatest tools the 4th amendments provides us. Officers WILL ask and try to gain consent if at all possible. I suspect that most of the vehicles the other commenter saw being searched by the roaming patrol, either did not know they could say no, or did not have the nerve to say no in a tense stressful situation.