3 ms·

So the main argument is that in the time that was written and immediately afterwards we can look to see what they mean by that by how it was implemented. At the

by rtkwe 8d ago

So the main argument is that in the time that was written and immediately afterwards we can look to see what they mean by that by how it was implemented. At the time it was understood that the government could and would search goods as they enter the country without warrants to enforce things like tariffs. I think that's a fairly reasonable interpretation of the meaning. Where I think this goes wrong (and maybe deviates from history?) is the conflation of papers and other digital records now with physical goods, historically were people's papers searched as they entered the country (beyond say looking through them to find hidden goods, I mean reading and examining letters and records)?

alistairSH 8d ago
But the 100 mile rule? That covers damn near everybody in the US (>200 million, or 66%, give or take) subject to warrantless searches on the whim of whatever the police want?
- EGreg 8d ago
  Yeah, where does this come from? Who keeps defending this, has it been challenged? About 213 million people live in this zone, so 2/3 of people in the USA. So I guess the 4th amendment doesn't actually apply to most US citizens?
  - rtkwe 8d ago
    Two main cases and the interpretation there-of [0]. The most expansive interpretation of the 100 mile zone that includes all coastal areas hasn't really been tested and AFAIK CBP mostly uses it in a more justifiable area around land borders so far relying on other justifications for more inland operations. [0] ^f Supreme Court: https://forumtogether.org/article/explainer-u-s-border-patrol-authorities-and-the-100-mile-border-zone/ https://forumtogether.org/article/explainer-u-s-border-patro...
- SoftTalker 8d ago
  It's more than that, it's being "close" to a border (you can argue if 100 miles is "close") and not on a whim but reason to believe you recently crossed it.
  - CamperBob2 8d ago
    I've heard (but can't back up) that any city with an international airport counts as a 'border' for this purpose.
    - SoftTalker 8d ago
      Probably. If international flights are arriving, why wouldn't it?
      - ndriscoll 8d ago
        Because you can't exactly sneak on/off of an international airplane. It should be pretty trivial for customs to funnel travelers through a checkpoint where they can search at the time of the actual border crossing. Likewise we now have the technology to automatically surveil the border 24/7 (maybe modulo tunnels, though I wouldn't be surprised if we could detect those too?), so a 100-mile exception only ever becomes more and more dubious. We could've built the wall and lined it with a surveillance system for less than the cost of this Iran war (never mind all the m̶o̶n̶e̶y̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶n̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ stimulus this decade), shutting up the whole border debate once and for all, and ending justifications for internal surveillance for trafficking.
        tonyarkles 8d ago
        > Because you can't exactly sneak on/off of an international airplane. I'm actually pretty curious about this. You can't easily sneak on/off a commercial international airplane, but that's because they've got the gates set up in the airport to funnel you through a specific path that leads to customs. Showing up on an international charter or GA flight seems squishier. http://www.canada.eaachapter.org/FLYING%20TO%20and%20FROM%20CANADA%202024.pdf http://www.canada.eaachapter.org/FLYING%20TO%20and%20FROM%20... The process seems to be that you schedule an ETA, taxi to a CBP station and wait there until a CBP officer arrives. On the other side of it, it looks like CANPASS would let you land in Canada even if the CBSA station is closed...
- rtkwe 8d ago
  That's a separate issue I don't support outside of situations where they can reasonably prove/show you crossed without alrady going through the search. Luckily, at least so far afaik, it hasn't really been deployed in the maximalist way that turns the whole country into that zone. It's a lot easier to justify near physical land borders like Canada and Mexico than it is if it's being used within 100 miles of very controlled impermiable borders like international airports. Has it been used outside of the land borders?
  - bshaughn 8d ago
    Well intentioned laws today can be used by illintentioned actors in the future, and mild legal exceptions can become significant ones with a couple additions. The 100 mile zone is a good example - that 100 mile zone assumes the entirety of the great lakes is international waters, even though Lake Michigan is 100% American Territory and over 300 miles long. So, you could be in a landlocked county of Indiana, and be harassed by the federal government for being in a border zone. Whats to stop someone from saying, the entire Mississippi river and its tributaries are a border zone? With that you could get 80% of the US population into the border zone. By enabling some "rule based" decisions that skirt the constitution, you enable a legal mechanism for constitutional rights to be violated without any legislation.
hdgvhicv 8d ago
The problem when you rely on unclear laws that haven’t been modified for 250 years is they haven’t been modified for 250 years. The scale of surveillance now wasn’t even thinkable back then. The ability to encrypt. The bandwidth and latency of communication. The sheer nunber of people, the research into manipulating minds. Does the second ammendment apply to an f35 or a tank? Well it doesn’t really matter, they clearly weren’t in scope when it was written. There were no wiretapping laws in the constitution because there was no wires. unreasonable in 1780 was different to unreasonable today. The US has famously failed to update its legal framework via the legislative branch, so It’s upto the judicial branch which seeks to be about interpreting what some wealthy farmers from 250 years ago thought, rather than asking what laws make sense today.
- bluecalm 8d ago
  >>The problem when you rely on unclear laws that haven’t been modified for 250 years is they haven’t been modified for 250 years. The Constitution gives you some rights but maybe not this one (to not be searched without warrant at a border). The problem is not The Constitution but the legislative branch that didn't make laws to ban it. >>what some wealthy farmers from 250 years ago thought, rather than asking what laws make sense today It's not the job of judges to invent laws or ponder what laws make sense. That would be legislative branch.
  - hdgvhicv 8d ago
    As you snipped out > The US has famously failed to update its legal framework via the legislative branch, so It’s upto the judicial branch which seeks to be about interpreting…
    - bluecalm 8d ago
      Yes but it's still not the job of the judges to do that for them.
      - suburban_strike 8d ago
eli 8d ago
I think they should have to pass a new amendment to fix or clarify when the Constitution seems to say something contradictory. Court shouldn't be able to just decide the 4th Amendment means something weaker than what it plainly says.

by rtkwe 8d ago

alistairSH 8d ago

But the 100 mile rule? That covers damn near everybody in the US (>200 million, or 66%, give or take) subject to warrantless searches on the whim of whatever the police want?

EGreg 8d ago
Yeah, where does this come from? Who keeps defending this, has it been challenged? About 213 million people live in this zone, so 2/3 of people in the USA. So I guess the 4th amendment doesn't actually apply to most US citizens?
- rtkwe 8d ago
  Two main cases and the interpretation there-of [0]. The most expansive interpretation of the 100 mile zone that includes all coastal areas hasn't really been tested and AFAIK CBP mostly uses it in a more justifiable area around land borders so far relying on other justifications for more inland operations. [0] ^f Supreme Court: https://forumtogether.org/article/explainer-u-s-border-patrol-authorities-and-the-100-mile-border-zone/ https://forumtogether.org/article/explainer-u-s-border-patro...
SoftTalker 8d ago
It's more than that, it's being "close" to a border (you can argue if 100 miles is "close") and not on a whim but reason to believe you recently crossed it.
- CamperBob2 8d ago
  I've heard (but can't back up) that any city with an international airport counts as a 'border' for this purpose.
  - SoftTalker 8d ago
    Probably. If international flights are arriving, why wouldn't it?
    - ndriscoll 8d ago
      Because you can't exactly sneak on/off of an international airplane. It should be pretty trivial for customs to funnel travelers through a checkpoint where they can search at the time of the actual border crossing. Likewise we now have the technology to automatically surveil the border 24/7 (maybe modulo tunnels, though I wouldn't be surprised if we could detect those too?), so a 100-mile exception only ever becomes more and more dubious. We could've built the wall and lined it with a surveillance system for less than the cost of this Iran war (never mind all the m̶o̶n̶e̶y̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶n̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ stimulus this decade), shutting up the whole border debate once and for all, and ending justifications for internal surveillance for trafficking.
      - tonyarkles 8d ago
        > Because you can't exactly sneak on/off of an international airplane. I'm actually pretty curious about this. You can't easily sneak on/off a commercial international airplane, but that's because they've got the gates set up in the airport to funnel you through a specific path that leads to customs. Showing up on an international charter or GA flight seems squishier. http://www.canada.eaachapter.org/FLYING%20TO%20and%20FROM%20CANADA%202024.pdf http://www.canada.eaachapter.org/FLYING%20TO%20and%20FROM%20... The process seems to be that you schedule an ETA, taxi to a CBP station and wait there until a CBP officer arrives. On the other side of it, it looks like CANPASS would let you land in Canada even if the CBSA station is closed...
rtkwe 8d ago
That's a separate issue I don't support outside of situations where they can reasonably prove/show you crossed without alrady going through the search. Luckily, at least so far afaik, it hasn't really been deployed in the maximalist way that turns the whole country into that zone. It's a lot easier to justify near physical land borders like Canada and Mexico than it is if it's being used within 100 miles of very controlled impermiable borders like international airports. Has it been used outside of the land borders?
- bshaughn 8d ago
  Well intentioned laws today can be used by illintentioned actors in the future, and mild legal exceptions can become significant ones with a couple additions. The 100 mile zone is a good example - that 100 mile zone assumes the entirety of the great lakes is international waters, even though Lake Michigan is 100% American Territory and over 300 miles long. So, you could be in a landlocked county of Indiana, and be harassed by the federal government for being in a border zone. Whats to stop someone from saying, the entire Mississippi river and its tributaries are a border zone? With that you could get 80% of the US population into the border zone. By enabling some "rule based" decisions that skirt the constitution, you enable a legal mechanism for constitutional rights to be violated without any legislation.

hdgvhicv 8d ago

The problem when you rely on unclear laws that haven’t been modified for 250 years is they haven’t been modified for 250 years. The scale of surveillance now wasn’t even thinkable back then. The ability to encrypt. The bandwidth and latency of communication. The sheer nunber of people, the research into manipulating minds. Does the second ammendment apply to an f35 or a tank? Well it doesn’t really matter, they clearly weren’t in scope when it was written. There were no wiretapping laws in the constitution because there was no wires. unreasonable in 1780 was different to unreasonable today. The US has famously failed to update its legal framework via the legislative branch, so It’s upto the judicial branch which seeks to be about interpreting what some wealthy farmers from 250 years ago thought, rather than asking what laws make sense today.

bluecalm 8d ago
>>The problem when you rely on unclear laws that haven’t been modified for 250 years is they haven’t been modified for 250 years. The Constitution gives you some rights but maybe not this one (to not be searched without warrant at a border). The problem is not The Constitution but the legislative branch that didn't make laws to ban it. >>what some wealthy farmers from 250 years ago thought, rather than asking what laws make sense today It's not the job of judges to invent laws or ponder what laws make sense. That would be legislative branch.
- hdgvhicv 8d ago
  As you snipped out > The US has famously failed to update its legal framework via the legislative branch, so It’s upto the judicial branch which seeks to be about interpreting…
  - bluecalm 8d ago
    Yes but it's still not the job of the judges to do that for them.
    - suburban_strike 8d ago

eli 8d ago

I think they should have to pass a new amendment to fix or clarify when the Constitution seems to say something contradictory. Court shouldn't be able to just decide the 4th Amendment means something weaker than what it plainly says.