Warrantless bag searches in D.C. Subways

[mrjarrell]

LOL. I find it more than amusing when people attempt to discredit the use of Wikipedia, despite the fact that almost all scholarly entries have numerous footnotes. Of course that would have required that the person actually read it.
Here, let me help you out.

It may refer to the ideology of statism that holds that:

Sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The concept of statism, which is seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline.[4]
​

4. ^ "statism" Political Science Dictionary. Editor Jack C. Plano. Dryden Press, 1973

The definition comes from a more respected source than the "Free Online Dictionary".

 

[rambone]

 

[ghunter]

We are becoming a police state, but it will not look like Nazi Germany with the Gestapo men in black trench coats asking for papers. I see the police state in the USA looking more like the world's biggest neighborhood association. The stormtroopers won't march down our streets with rifles, but with clip boards, and that's how they'll get away with it. Light bulbs, cold pills, etc. It's only perceived as a hostile take over if it is first perceived as hostile. Most people don't seem to mind the micromanagement of their day to day business.

 

[scully]

Im sorry UncleMike but I have to disagree with you here. The size of the government is expanding every day at a phenomenal rate and thats a fact! Do you not agree with that?

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. "
— Ronald Reagan

"As government expands, liberty contracts."
— Ronald Reagan

 

[Dredd]

people wont be so quick to complaine when they stop a bomber by doing a simple bag check. If you have so much to hide then maybe you should keep your stash at home!!

 

[PatriotPride]

people wont be so quick to complaine when they stop a bomber by doing a simple bag check. If you have so much to hide then maybe you should keep your stash at home!!

PURE FAIL.

So the 4th Amendment is out the window eh? Someone, anyone, please advise as to exactly WHEN our Constitution was amended to remove the 4th Amendment? Anyone?

 

[Dredd]

PURE FAIL.

So the 4th Amendment is out the window eh? Someone, anyone, please advise as to exactly WHEN our Constitution was amended to remove the 4th Amendment? Anyone?

no it is you have failed when it comes to using logic. The only people scared of getting checked are the dope smoking punks who think they can do anything they want without consequenses. I have thought we have been needing this since 911 happened. We are so weak on security its not even funny. There should be officers on evry train and no more free passes for people who wont accept a seach. My family's lifes are too important to put up with the complaners

 

[ATM]

Trading liberty for security.

Enjoy your chains.


I'll pass, thank you. Freedom is a dangerous thing.

 

[Hawkeye]

no it is you have failed when it comes to using logic. The only people scared of getting checked are the dope smoking punks who think they can do anything they want without consequenses. I have thought we have been needing this since 911 happened. We are so weak on security its not even funny. There should be officers on evry train and no more free passes for people who wont accept a seach. My family's lifes are too important to put up with the complaners

Amazing. Simply amazing. Maybe you'd be happy with the police just going door-to-door searching all houses and all vehicles, everything, everywhere. After all, if you have nothing to hide....

 

[ATM]

...Maybe you'd be happy with the police just going door-to-door searching all houses and all vehicles, everything, everywhere...

I'm pretty sure he would actually support that, since he claims to be LEO and in other threads supports fishing expeditions as "good busts" if they ultimately produce an arrestable offense.



At least he'd support it while writing on an internet forum...

 

[hornadylnl]

I think we are being trolled.

 

[littletommy]

I'm pretty sure he would actually support that, since he claims to be LEO and in other threads supports fishing expeditions as "good busts" if they ultimately produce an arrestable offense.



At least he'd support it while writing on an internet forum...

I've read quite a few of his posts now, and I keep getting the image in my head of a 30 something, 600 lb man who trolls the internet on his moms computer, while waiting for the van to pick him up and take him to WalMart.

 

[mrjarrell]

Did he even post a "Hi, there!" post before he started trolling?

 

[Lobo]

.

 

[Expat]

The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. That wording provides for an awful lot of interpretation by the courts. Which is exactly the way the founding fathers set it up.

Random searches of bags on subway systems have been ruled constitutional by a federal judge, and that decision was upheld on appeal.

You are going to flunk the ideological purity test

 

[Dredd]

I don't mind random bag searches when a specific, credible threat has been identified, as long as the searches are minimally intrusive and one can refuse to submit to the search without penalty (other than not riding the subway). I would be concerned with the government using bogeymen to institute full time bag searches, but then again, I'm not riding the subway on a regular basis. Perhaps the majority of people affected by these searches think that they are reasonable? I think the whole point of the "unreasonable" disclaimer in the 4th Amendment was to allow the people to decide reasonableness, through their elected leaders and the courts.

 

[RichardR]

If the majority of citizens think that these searches are reasonable, and we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and the matter has been through the court system provided for in the Constitution, then how can these searches be unconstitutional?

The majority of citizens in North Korea think their system is reasonable, but that's because they have been conditioned to think that.

No difference here really, except that our pesky Constitution is a constant reminder to a handful of hold-out's that "We the People of these United States" were once actually protected from these sorts of things.

 

[jbombelli]

I think we are being trolled.

This.

Obvious Troll is obvious. Or, obvius as he would probably spell it.

 

[Coydog]

We won't be voting ourselves out of the mess we are in. If the members of this forum were the entire electorate we could not expect a change for the better. Without respect for the Constitution, the American Way is a one way street.

 

[PatriotPride]

no it is you have failed when it comes to using logic. The only people scared of getting checked are the dope smoking punks who think they can do anything they want without consequenses. I have thought we have been needing this since 911 happened. We are so weak on security its not even funny. There should be officers on evry train and no more free passes for people who wont accept a seach. My family's lifes are too important to put up with the complaners

Now I KNOW you are a troll. You know very well what will happen if law enforcement in this country attempts what you are advocating. Go away.

You can quote "trading liberty for safety" all day, but for the majority of people, imaginary "chains" don't weigh anything. Most Americans are very comfortable in their everyday lives, and it will take more than 60 second bag checks and body scanners at the airport to spark the kind of shooting war that I imagine a few on this board are longing for. Much more.

You tout the courts' decisions like they are gospel. Look back through our nation's brief history and see how many times our courts have been terribly, terribly wrong---all in the name of politics and keeping power firmly in the hands of the government. I suppose the Supreme Court was correct in it's Dred Scott decision.

Why is it that the people who claim to be so AGAINST revolution are the ones who bring it up all the time? You may be comfortable and complacent in your chains. I am not. I still understand what freedom is, even if you don't.

And for the record, there is a difference between understanding that something is inevitable, and actually "longing for" something to happen.