Lawyers Protect Your Right to Kill MBTA Passengers
Tue July 27th, 2004 12:23 MSTThe Boston Globe reports:
BOSTON (AP) Two civil rights groups filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority from randomly inspecting passengers’ bags, saying it’s an unconstitutional violation of personal privacy.
A judge scheduled an emergency hearing for Tuesday afternoon in the case filed by National Lawyers Guild and American Anti-Discrimination Committee.
The random inspections began Thursday, just in time for the Democratic National Convention, which started Monday at the FleetCenter. The policy is the first of its kind in the country.
The groups say the searches violate the Fourth Amendment because they don’t require information that the person searched is suspected of criminal activity. They’ve urged customers not to consent to the searches.
”There is no way the MBTA can implement this policy in a constitutional manner,” said National Lawyers Guild national president Michael Avery.
Showing once again that “civil liberties group” really means “People Who Don’t understand Terrorism,” two groups want to insure that those wanting to blow up innocents on Boston’s public transit can do so with minimal disruption. Don’t they remember that two of the 9-11 aircraft took off from Boston’s Logan Airport? How about the Madrid train bombings?
Then there’s the question of why it’s okay for airport personnel to check bags but not for train personnel. Their arguments are nonsense.
It is true people don’t have to agree to be seached and the train should have the right to refuse to let them ride if they do refuse to be searched.
It shouldn’t come as any surprise that the radical National Lawyers Guild is involved in this scheme. This cancerous bunch of leftist lawyers has a stated goal of destroying our political and economic system and welcomes with open arms to our shores any lamebrained lemming who wishes to kill and maim our citizenry. They support the terrorist Jose Padilla, Juan Aristide and the right of Ramsey Clarke to defend Saddam Hussein, among other extreme left-wing causes.
Beware of these wolves in wolves clothing……
Frank:
The National Lawyers Guild is among the causes that Mrs. Heinz Kerry supports through the Tides Foundation. The Council on American Islamic Relations is another, which has ties to Hamas. Tell me I’m having a nightmare. Please.
No nightmare, Rhod—-and the Tides also supports Ruckus, that bunch of chickenshit hit and runners we see destroying everything in sight outside the WTO meetings. They are sure to be at the Republican Convention. What I wouldn’t give to be there with a bunch of Vets armed with TASER guns….I’m sure we could get the cops to turn their backs while we turned them punks into a pile of spastic waste.
If only…….!!
Tasers? How about Barrett 50s?
Marine snipers in Iraq love them.
That would be better yet…then we wouldn’t have be close enough to smell those crud!!
My son sent me an email that described the record sniper shot of 2430m that a Canadian sniper team pulled off in Afghanistan a couple years ago. An American team had the previous record of almost 2100m using the Barrett .50. From what I read, the Canucks used an issued BMG .50, but made the kill with American .50 rounds. From what was described, the first shot knicked a Taliban truck drivers shirt/coat lapel at shoulder height, and when he looked down to see what “bug” was on him (during which time the spotter adjustment was given), he caught the next round in the head.
Now for the stupid part: When the American unit they were attached to wanted to honor the sniper team with Bronze Stars for that feat and other Canadian sniper contributions, the freaking Ottawa government put the medals on hold. I don’t know if they ever got the medals but their record kill says it all and the American handshakes and free booze probably meant more to those guys than the awards.
I have three sons in the military. One 82nd, another 101st, the other attached to 10th Mountain. If I could round them up in one place it wouldn’t take much persuading to get them down to the Rep Convention for unofficial security. They could bring a couple friends along, but that would be overkill.
This kind of talk will horrify the typical Kerry supporter. Rugged resistance to evil isn’t in the playbook. Was it Slate mag in their description of Sandy Berger’s philosophy…words to this effect: “there is no problem so large that it can’t be solved by walking away from it”. Certainly this is the majority Canadian view of world affairs.
(Hmmm: lets see, how do I explain this to the cognitively impaired?)
1. When you take the oath as an officer, a lawyer, or other member of the Government, you swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States-not the flag, not the president nor the congress: just the Constitution.
2. The Constitution declares that the Government has NO RIGHTS OR POWERS not expressly granted it by the people( Amendment 9) and that all rights not expressly granted the Government are reserved to the States and the people, respectively(10).
3. It thus follows, as does the night the day, that the Government cannot grant us any rights: it has none to grant, save those already ours; likewise, but less obviously, the Constitution does not nor cannot grant us any rights: it has no rights to grant.
4. Some of the original states insisted on including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution: they reasoned that there should be examples of the kinds of actions Government could not take so their descendents would have no doubts on the matter. Thus the Fourth Amendment prohibits searches and/or seizures without warrant or probable cause to believe a person is breaking a law.
5. NO ONE, not the Attorney General himself, can, under the founder’s Constitution, detain you, search you or your property, nor seize anything of yours unless they can first demonstrate probable cause-and “you could be a terrorist” is NOT probable cause.
6. And if Ashcroft can’t do it, no public service such as a bus, train or ferry co. can do it-and the simplistic idea that “if you don’t like it, don’t ride” is, in this context, as anti-American as Mao’s Little Red Book.
So, all the testosterone-soaked “Bring it On!” chest-thumping aside, the blood-sucking lawyers are right, and you’re wrong.
“cognitively impaired”?
Thanks for the dissertation on The Constitution, and you know what? You’re right, but are apparently unaware that Case Law interperets the Constitution, defines implied powers, recognizes a “penumbra” and so forth. So you’re wrong too, and in an important way.
It would be interesting to hear you comment on The Commerce Clause, under which all the major Civil Rights cases of the 60’s were decided. Hmmmm. Racism. Commerce. Racism. Commerce. Which one does Bro prefer? Damn those people anyway, the Bill of Rights doesn’t outlaw racism.
Under the Bro Principle, African-Americans would still be excluded from everything meaningful in America because the Constitution has nothing to say about it….unless you consider at least the 14th Amendment, but that doesn’t matter to Bro because the Bill of Rights didn’t foresee it.
I think Constitutionalism is the last refuge of scoundrels, not patriotism. Bro, take a look at Schenk v. U.S. and come back and talk about the Patriot Act when you know a little more.
C3/6 Bro:
You neglected to mention a few things in your lecture on the Constitution.
The 10th Amendment has no teeth, never has, and We The States did not authorize the Constitution, it was We The People. The State’s Rights issue died and was buried in a ditch years and years ago. It’s also a very flexible issue for people on both sides of the aisle, but it means absolutely nothing.
The Bill of Rights was opposed by many of The Federalists, especially Hamilton, who argued the position…unlike your view…that a list of human rights was better left OUT because no one could define them all. And most important, that it is senseless to define protected rights if we assume that we the people retain all of them anyway.
The Bill of Rights is an object lesson FOR the position that governments grant rights, because The Bill of Rights by its very existence implies that the government has the power to limit the rights embodied therein. Your Point Number 3 which follows your Point Number 2 as night follows day, assumes a land where the sun never sets.
Any legal scholar would tell you that the Bill of Rights doesn’t confer rights, it defines a set of them that, for now, the government can’t meddle with, but anything else, the government can.
This a very problemmatic feature of our Constitution, and you cannot have it both ways. We have TWO Constitutions in one, a monarchic and a republican Constitution, with the Bill of Rights specifying exceptions to EXISTING power, much like the Magna Carta.
If you think these are distinctions without a difference, this country would have been a much different, and in my opinion, better place without the Bill of Rights. The Bill is thoroughly misunderstood by libertarians, liberals and conservatives alike.
C-3PO: wrote;
“” 2. The Constitution declares that the Government has NO RIGHTS OR POWERS not expressly granted it by the people( Amendment 9) and that all rights not expressly granted the Government are reserved to the States and the people, respectively(10).”"
Your statement is basically correct, so what is your point. the Patriot Act is bad, Why ? We should wait for another 9-11 and then arrest the terrorist ? This is pure stupidity. That is what the Clinton Administration did they reacted to a crisis rather than a pro-active approach.
The 10th amendment is fine and you are right but this country fought a whole war over the 10 th amendment, as to the rights of the states.
You obviously have a problem with the Patriot Act which congress approved with the help of the left dimwhits, but the Patriot Act has no more teeth in it that the RICO Act, which was written to help curb organized Crime, and the Clinton Administration conveniently reinterpreted it to include anti-abortion protest.
Senator Boxer (Democrat) from the left coast, asked the ACLU to investigate the Patriot ACT to see if there were any instances of abuse, guess what there were NONE.
Perhaps you should try re-reading Civics 101 again. Then come back with ALL the facts not just selected ones.
Mark