TSA Doing Random Truck Searches On Tennessee Highway 578
OverTheGeicoE writes "TSA is expanding its presence to the American road system. As part of its Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) program, TSA agents are now working at 5 weigh stations and two bus stations in Tennessee. They are randomly checking trucks with 'drug and bomb sniffing dogs', and encouraging truck drivers to join their First Observer Highway Security Program and report anything suspicious that they see to authorities. VIPR is allegedly not a response to any particular threat."
Re:Their mission (Score:5, Informative)
How about this mission statement:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Tyranny (Score:5, Informative)
This is the thin leading wedge of tyranny. Everyone involved in the decision making process of this program, starting with Mr. Bill Gibbons, should be fired and banned from Government employment for life, as they have shown themselves as being clearly unworthy of the public trust.
Re:Occupied Country (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why bother with a 4th amendment at all (Score:5, Informative)
We say that because it's the ideals that were taught us in grade school, and espoused by the founding fathers. We are roughly as appalled by this as you are, but feel that there's almost nothing we can do about it. Compound this with about half the country feeling directly opposite of us, and clamoring for more paranoia, it's very frustrating. I feel nervous even writing this, and yes I realize that is a bad sign.
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Informative)
DRIVING IS ABSOLUTELY A RIGHT.
To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
One of the arguments the Federalists gave against the addition of a Bill of Rights, during the debates about ratification of the Constitution, was that a listing of rights could problematically enlarge the powers specified in Article One, Section 8 of the new Constitution by implication. For example, in Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton asked, "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
The power is not enumerated as a power of congress, so the TSA can't do it legally, so it is our right. Don't let that stop you from being a living breathing argument against the Bill of Rights though.
That potential misunderstanding of the US Constitution is why the ninth and tenth amendments had to be added. They expected the government to say to people "hey that's not in the Bill of Rights so it's not your right." I think they would be saddened that it's actually civilians trying to throw each other's rights away.
Courts hold driving is a right, not a privilege (Score:5, Informative)
Drving, despite what the DMV and the police would have you believe, is a right well-established by both law and court decision. Yes, the police are lying to you as they overreach their authority, shocking I know.
Cites follow, the reasoning is roughly this. A citizen cannot participate in modern society without the use of an automobile. Public transportation only covers a minor portion of the geography of the US. Bicycles and walking cannot cover the routine distances involved in modern life. On the other hand, driving is a dangerous activity with significant hazards to the public at large, thus the right to "Life," balances against the right to "Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Personally, I hope the TSA does expand to random traffic stops. I hope they start impementing strip searches for walking down the sidewalk. I want them to set up shop at the OWS rally near you. The faster they can provoke a full-out general revolt against their nonsense, the happier I'll be.
Here are the court decisions I promised you:
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.
""Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22. "
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.
"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of lo
Re:Job program. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What happened to the constitution? (Score:5, Informative)
They're USCBP / DHS. They don't have to give a badge number and are by and large above the law. You have no Fourth Amendment rights against them since according to the Government, CBP can do suspicionless searches under the "border search" exemption anywhere within 100 miles of the border (which of course includes most populated areas of the United States). The ACLU calls it the Constitution-Free Zone [aclu.org] and if you don't like it, you might want to consider donating as they're trying to fight it.