The over enforcement of the CRA which caused too many low income people to be given home mortgages that they couldn't properly afford is one example. It also cause this high risk loans to be packaged and sold off into the derivatives market that as regulation in 2003 and 2005 attempted to deal with the situation but failed to attack the real problems within it.
And not, this is not an attack on the Community reinvestment act, it's a complaint on how it became administrated over the years -enforcement here and there and ignoring limits or opening limits when it was obvious there were problems instead of dealing with the problems itself.
If the laws get rid of the purposeful attempt at manipulating the economic activity for purely political purposes and puts some real economic consideration into the regulations for the safety of the consumer, then yes.
The entire point was that passing laws for the sake of passing them or for political purposes is without consideration of real world economics is what got us into this mess when the banks took advantage of it. Fixing the problem would require new laws to undo the old laws and make them appropriate to regulate the industry effectively for both the consumer and the banks.
Passing laws isn't necessarily the problem. You will need to pass laws to undo the damage being caused by the old laws. The trick is to pass effective and not just symbolic laws or laws designed for political advantage.
This is America, you are free to remain as willfully ignorant as you want. Just don't get upset when people look at you like you're an idiot or something and don't take you serious..
Where we went wrong was not punishing the scumbags who created the problem, and not breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks. In other words, our problem wasn't too much government intervention, but too little.
Sigh.. Your only half wrong. The problem was incorrect and and improper regulation with a lack of enforcement in certain areas and over enforcement in others. It has the hall marks of too much government intervention as well as i got mine attitudes.
When you ask what the problem was, you find it was toxic assets. Wehn you ask what that was, you find it's derivitives. When you ask what that was, you find it is loan packages being sold as investment vehicles. When you ask why it was a problem, you find several answers like the law requiring banks to keep their investments separate from their investor's or customer's investments being repealed while at the same time, requiring a certain amount of home loans and other loans being made to low income and disadvantage portions of the populations. You also had government sponsored enterprises backing those loans which ended up being packaged and sold as investments (derivatives) to the banks under the impression the government would back the loans. This commanded a higher amount and meant that risk wasn't much of a factor and it was actually considered a safe bet as well as a lucrative bet because the interest rates on the low income loans werre generally higher then normal loans. When the local banks were able to sell these off, they could make more loans which inflated prices creating the need for higher values loans and compounding the problems when the loans would default because they in fact were not government backed.
Long story short, the problem was not too little government intervention, but ineffective regulation and improper enforcement of regulation. You can actually have the government involved in an area of commerce and not do any good if they do not act in the appropriate fashion. That is what happened, they pushed incompatible goals which directly caused the problems in some cases and encouraged the problems in others. The problem is not government involvement or the lack thereof. It is improper involvement and ineffective enforcement of regulation.
I was going to say something similar. If your going to film a cop or a security guard getting busy with someone, make sure you have someone documenting you. A go pro is relatively cheap (there are similar self contained bullet even cheaper) and will not attract too much attention.
Then if something like this happens, put it on the evening news. Put it on the interweb, and put it in evidence for the court case to free whomever on the trumped up charge as well as helping sue the piss out of everyone.
When I say the courts were doing it long before you were born, well before your parents were born, and well before anyone you know who is alive today was born, you have truly showed you do not know what you are talking about.
Really, you are saying that because I point out what had happened for over 200 years, you are saying I am not qualified to discuss the validity of your relatively new idea?
Not really. If they don't believe in the cause enough to over look that, they might have been distracted by the latest Brittany Spears blunder or something too.
Those people will be somewhat small in comparison to the gains. However, I do agree that it probably could be taken too far and turn a lot of people off. But having babes or bare chested firefighters doing something for the event that isn't indicative of a sexual act or something that would just gross most people out would likely help more then hurt.
Actually, I think they are. A protest is not necessarily selling a product, it's selling the idea that there is support for the product. The product is generally being sold to whatever they are protesting against but by selling sex, it increases the appearance of support for their cause by the inclusion of morons thinking with their dicks.
Imagine if you will, 20 prudently dresses women holding a rally to support $insertcause. Now imagine 10 scantly dressed 21 year old hotties and 10 muscle bound shirtless men doing the same for the same cause. You will have a base showing for the prudent women because the cause is what is there. But you will have added women and men interested in looking at the hot bodies of the people involved so there will likely be an above base showing for the event. In the end, the people thinking with their primitive instincts lend the appearance of wider spread support increasing the power for the cause. So using sex to sell a concept is a powerful tool for a cause and I think that the sale of sex (metaphorically) is actually intended to some of not a large degree.
The role of "unreasonable" (and therefore "reasonable" as well) within the context of the 4th amendment seems to me to be crystal clear: it is defined by the restrictions laid out next.
Not according to the courts dating back as far as the early 1800's. That BTW, is a little more then a few decades.
A reasonable search is one that has the predicates: probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, clear description of who, and what, is to be searched, and a warrant.
An unreasonable search is any search that does not meet those requirements. And, as the amendment says, you are to be free from those.
And I don't think it says what you think it says. You would think if you read the amendment as one sentence. However, the courts have and do frequently read it as two sentences and have read it within the historical contexts to get both. With the change of the administrative searches being separate, this distinction doesn't come up much but it is still there.
Ask yourself this: Does it make sense to say that the government is limited to searching only with these predicates... "unless it feels it's reasonable", where reasonable is left to an unknown, that is to say ultimately vague, definition?
Or would they more likely lay out those limits to, you know, actually limit the government?/blockquote>I don't really know why you think they do not do this already. Since almost the beginning of the country they have held the power to search vessels and people at the ports of entry entering and leaving the country. Revenue agents have always had the ability to enter private property and even go to parts purposely hidden specifically for an expectation of privacy with the purpose of enforcing tax regulation concerning the production of alcohol. Game wardens have always had the legal ability to cross property lines and enter anyone's property to not only enforce but to observe and detect abuses of game laws (hunting and fishing). The government can even bar you from private employment by requiring the searching of your body fluids or hair to detect illegal drug use. And as far as the country has been in existence, the government has held the power to search, without warrant or probably cause, anyone taken into custody whether for questioning or suspicion of a crime or as a result of a direct accusation of a crime. The US military, a government agency, has always held the ability to set checkpoints and search people and possessions without warrant during times of conflict. Even on our own soil.
So you tell me if the term reasonable has left it to a vague definition. It seems to me that regardless of what you think, the government and the courts seem to think that it is but change how they interpret reasonable frequently.
Look at the other amendments. They're all explicit limits on the government. Why in the world would they take the time to write an amendment that only appears to be a limit, but isn't, based upon anyone's particular definition of reasonable at the moment?
Why not just say: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against searches and seizures, shall not be violated unless the government says it is reasonable to do so"?
Looks pretty strange that way, doesn't it? It certainly wouldn't be construed as a limit -- instead, that's how you would lay out a power. But it means exactly the same thing as your reading: If they think it's reasonable, they can just do it.
Actually, the converse can be said. Why doesn't the amendment say "all searches except with a warrant" instead of just "unreasonable"? You see, language has meanings and people use that language to convey thoughts and instruct intent. The term unreasonable means that there are times where a reasoned search can be done without a warrant as directed by the very first congress seated in the United States after the creation and ratifi
Now, please ask yourself how can you justify that the government has been granted the authority to search under any other conditions other than probable cause, oath or affirmation, specifics WRT who and what, and a warrant that lays this out.
Please read that again and ask yourself why the term unreasonable was placed in there if there aren't reasonable searches that do not fall into that category. Now, ask yourself why the government thinks it can get away with what you think is a violation of the constitution. Also, ask yourself why congress created a law allowing searches at ports of entry without warrant during the second session of the very first congress seated in the US.
The courts have been rubber stamping constitutional violations for years now. I say they are part of the problem. They're being used to whitewash these violations. If you don't consider that this is the case, I see where your issue arises. I disagree emphatically.
This is the case, but I would argue that the vast majority of accusation of the same stem from someone either not knowing what they are talking about or are confused to some aspect of it.
Yes. This is part of the problem. You've come to the conclusion something along the lines that SCOTUS is pure and honorable, perhaps always correct. I have looked quite extensively at their actions over the last few decades, and I have extremely high confidence that this is not the case.
The courts have went back and forth on the premise of reasonable verses warrant with exceptions. However, since the early to mid 70's (that i can remember anyways- there was a junk yard case in NY but I think it goes back further then that) they have held that administrative searches were separate and legal due to the interests of the state. This is how a regulator can enter a bank and search it's records for signs of violations of regulations. This is how OSHA or other agencies can enter employment facilities and search for safety hazards and the MSDS materials for chemicals and stuff. This is how the government can require commercial drivers, airline pilots, train engineers, and bus drivers to undergo pre-employment and random drug screenings.
You're entitled to your opinion; I to mine. We're not on the same side of the issue, nor, I think, will we ever be.
We may get to the same opinion about warrantless searches. But I doubt I will ever compare them with what Rosa Parks did simply because there is a reason for the Airport screening that is legitimate in appearance where as there was no legitimacy to the discrimination of a person based on factors they had absolutely no control over. Perhaps if you could show me where whites get waved through while minorities have to wait or something. But as far as I know, they are taking steps to screw just as many if not more white people as minorities specifically to make the case that isn't happening. That's why 80 year old grandmas are yanked out of wheelchairs and 3 year old children are getting groped- to show it's not a racist or profiling experience.
Couple of notes here. This is purely anecdotal so don't take it as the Gospel. I was on IV antibiotics not too long ago followed by oral antibiotic for a condition called Diverticulitis.
Anyways, while I was on the antibiotic, I wasn't to have milk or milk based foods (yogurt, ice cream so on). I was told it would reduce the effectiveness of the antibiotic and the treatment wouldn't work. After I finished the oral antibiotics, I was instructed to drink at least 2 ounces of kefir at least twice a day by my doctor in order to replenish the "good" bacteria in the gut. I imagine this is the gut flora being talked about.
I guess what I'm getting at is, check with your doc first if you are going to do something like this. You might need to wait until your off the antibiotic first.
I buy it in the health food section about once a week. Please explain because I would love to have it more often but at $5 a quart, I think a quart a week is enough. on the other hand, I go through about a gallon and a half of milk a week.
Just a note. Oil wouldn't go up for long because Iran doesn't sell much of it's oil. Most of fit has been embargoed for the last year or two and it's output has been restricted for a while.
If we went to war with Iran, I project the price of oil actually dropping because investors know the eventuality would be the oil being sold in larger quantities then it is now.
However, I don't see the US or any western nation going into Iran. I think it would eventually happen that a neighboring state would invade and western nations would become allies in aid. Iran is a more complicated mess then Iraq or Afghanistan. We missed opportunities to support a revolt that apparently was happening without any western instigation. The public of Iran would likely not take to us deposing their government.
Both incidents involve a citizen balking at wholly illegitimate government activity. The activities in question are different; the nature of the protest is not - therein lies the similarity.
You mean like the guy who ignores the speed limit then whines about getting a ticket because the road is obviously safe enough for faster travel? Again, I don't see the parallels to someone standing up for what amounts to society demanding they are lower class people then others based completely on natural and uncontrollable traits.
Perhaps that's because you're comparing different parts of the situation and ignoring, or missing, the key issue they have in common: An out of control government abusing its citizens by exercise of unauthorized and unreasonable force.
The key issue with Rosa Parks was that she was demanding to be treated as an equal to someone who's only observable difference was race. That is the significant mark of Rosa's story. The fact that the incident was orchestrated, she was arrested, or anything else in between is just the mechanics of the situation.
Airport screening is a straight-up violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution. These searches here have not even a shadow of the explicitly defined precursors required of the government before they are allowed to undertake a search
I do not believe they are and evidently, neither does the courts or anyone with the power to stop it. Anyone who has been subject to the searches have the ability to sue in retaliation if it was a violation. If it was a violation, her defense to the crime should have been the 1st and 4th amendment grants her the right to protest violations of her rights.
When the government is as explicitly and extensively wrong as it is in these cases, resisting government malfeasance is the honorable and correct action.
I think if you looked at it more, you will find that the government is not wrong, the courts support or allow it to happen, there is a history of them allowing it to happen long before airplanes were created and even the first congress of the US in it's second session allowed unwarranted searches and ports or entry by law- that BTW, has survived court challenges and is still on the books to this day.
Funny, in your response you didn't say what that reason was. Wikipedia is not the be-all-end-all of information, but I didn't see a reason listed there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War. And wouldn't you think that if you are going to overthrow a country, and not even declare war, and kill thousands upon thousands of your own people - let alone many many others around the world, and spend well over a trillion dollars, that there would have to be a pretty good reason? And that everyone would know what that reason was?
Then you are intentionally blind and deaf. It states it in the second paragraph of the page you actually linked to.
Here is a recap, Iraq possessed WMDs that were supposed to be destroyed according to the armistice that ended the first gulf war. They failed to prove this disarmament happened and while attempting to interrupt verification activities by international groups, actively presented themselves as still having the WMDs and capabilities to create more (we later find out from questioning Saddam after his capture that this was because Saddam feared the neighboring countries would otherwise think they were vulnerable to attack and invade them so he purposely create this impression). They failed to disclose prohibited and duel use materials purchased through Russia and France during their exploitation of the oil for food program and embargo and let UN weapons inspectors find them specifically to appear as if they still had WMD capabilities and create an international sensation when the weapons inspectors reported them. BTW, the quarterly reports are still available online if you care to look at what was actually in them and compare it to what was claimed by people. If you do, pay close attention to the reports before before march 2003.
Iraq had been supporting terrorist activities. This is irrefutable as it is well known Saddam was offering rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine and other areas, and hosted safe havens and training compounds for known terrorist groups in the past and even attempted to operate Iraq's own terrorist activities. The US and England had always held that Iraq was a terrorist nation or more precisely a state sponsor of terrorism and a state sponsor of international terrorism since 1979 with a brief exception in 1982-1990 (where I'm not sure the UK went along with) where we aided them with non-lethal military supplies and funding to fight their war against Iran. Look up Judith S. Yaphe's 911 commission testimony for more information on Iraq and Terrorism. You will find an honest look into the threat and associations of Iraq and terrorism that isn't an automatic yes or no response.
Anyways, after 9/11 happened, Bush changed the nations strategic defense against terrorism from a react nature to a proactive nature. In other words, instead of responding to incidents and using police work to thwart it or deal with it after it happened, we were now using military and other resources once reserved to stop it or retaliate against it. The major differences is that the US now took a proactive stance and considered the sponsors of terrorism to be just as bad as the terrorist themselves (before, we respected the sovereignty of the nations involved and the terrorists largely attack US military and government outposts instead of the civilian population). This directive is BTW, something Obama has continued to do on a lesser scale with the drone strikes in foreign countries.
There was the set up. Now the reasons, Iraq's known connections to terrorism (Which some narrow minded people claim is a connection to Al Qaeda as if it's the only set of terrorist out there), combined with Iraq's failure to verify-ably disarm their WMDs and the possibilities of giving those WMDs to terrorist entities, along with terrorists attacking civilian targets (before, they generally targeted US military of government institutions when they attacks the US), the US and Un
I actually have indemnity insurance so I don't have that problem.
But I consider that pretty brash, demanding that you are entitled to something more then someone is willing to give you. And it is not like the person doesn't have other options available. They can pay for the abortion themselves, go to a clinic like Planned Parenthood who BTW, has spent more money campaigning for democrats this year then the government gives them in a year (so much for ideology), or pay for the abortions themselves.
Even if the person doesn't live in an area with a high minority population (planned parenthood will not set up an abortion clinic in an area without a high minority population), they subsidize the costs of a private medical professional to perform the abortion. And yes, I still consider Planned Parenthood to be a racist organization bent on stopping minorities from reproducing in the same faith of their founder the eugenicists Margarete Sanger.
Where do you think she was entering from? She didn't parachute into the airport from a foreign plane. If she had been patted down, scanned, or had her fourth amendment rights violated as she was walking up the jetway from an international flight, or perhaps even as she was try to exit an airport where international flights land, your line of reasoning might work. The problem is that she was not exiting a plane or an airport, she was trying to enter an airport.
Don't let entry in the term port of entry confuse you. It does not mean only a place where someone enters the country. It means a place where people and or goods enter and exit the country officially. The government can search a ship entering or existing the country under the law they passed.
Really though, even if you want to make the case that the government can search people as they exit the country (and let's just ignore what kind of precedent that sets), the woman in TFA was not crossing any international borders, she was traveling within the United States.
Actually, the government can search people and things leaving the country. The law I spoke about specifically allowed that. The precedent has already been set which is largely why no one has been able to sue to stop the TSAs actions on the grounds of constitutionality. Everyone who gets searched at the airports would have grounds for suit should that not be true.
At what point did travel within this country suddenly fall under the border search doctrine?
At the point when international flights became popular enough that entire airports are designated for them. A flight from Canada cannot land at just any airport (well, it can in some limited situations with approved status). It has to go to an airport designated as a port of entry. You may know these more commonly as international airports. Generally, international is somewhere in the common name.
Sure do: nobody was crossing an international border, , nor was anyone boarding an oceangoing ship, nor was the search limited to sections of the airport where international flights arrive and depart. The TSA's warrantless search program is not limited to international airports or to international travel; even regional airports with no international flights have TSA agents and body scanners. The border search loophole does not apply here by any stretch of the imagination.
Well, then fly somewhere, object to the screening, let them do it under duress, then try to sue and let the court tell you the same thing I did. Or better yet, get into trouble, get cited, claim 4th amendment rights, and see if you don't hear what I just told you.
BTW, cases have been tossed out specifically over this same charge by claiming constitutional rights where they apply. I actually know a woman who was cited with disorderly conduct and failing to obey a lawful order from a public safety officer when she refused to leave a hallway outside a court room because she had a constitutional right to advocate for the defendant of a case (domestic violence gone wrong- neighbor stopping a man from beating his wife was charge for assault because he told her to leave him in front of the cops- the community was in an uproar over it happened and the judge ordered the hallway cleared and this woman refused to leave).
As for the founders, they did create a situation where warrants or cause were not needed for a search even though they forbid themselves from "unreasonable searches" and required a warrant to be supported by probable cause and describing the place, person to be search and items they are searching for. It is clear to me that they envisions situations to where a search was not unreasonable or needing a warrant.
Now I can say they ever envisions airport security, but given the fact, I can say they didn't expressly forbid it either.
a person's personal medical care which is nobody else's business
lol.. Nothing I said would interfere with that. It would simply stop from making it "public business" by taxing the public and the government (which is by nature public) paying for it. Big difference there. I don't really care what you do, just don't expect me to pay for it.
As for the rest, I think you are pretty much spot on.
She was at an airport. Most airports are considered ports of entry. The first US congress, in the second term, actually passed the first warrantless search laws which was held ass valid and necessary by the supreme court of the United State of America because the right of sovereignty requires the country to be secure in it's borders.
Now, I have to ask you. If the very people who either wrote the Constitution, signed the constitution, or were sent to be part of congress based on the newly created constitution thought it was pertinent and fine and within the bounds of the constitution to search without a warrant at the port of entries, what makes you think the US constitution prohibits it?
I ask this because it appears you have some insight that the founders didn't in this situation.
I'm not seeing the parallels here. While Rosa Parks was actually a plant and political operative when refusing to give her seat up, the rules on the bus had nothing to do with safety of the bus or passengers, had nothing to do with even the impression of it nor did they attempt to claim it was. The rules on the bus were solely for elevating one race of people above another based entirely on natural allocations of pigment that is completely uncontrollable by the individual being repressed.
The airport screening on the other hand, whether effective or not, is all about the safety of the people and equipment/facilities involve. If Rosa Parks refused an Airport screening, I seriously doubt anything would have became of it even remotely like what happened on the bus.
I find it disingenuous and somewhat offensive comparing the two. Airport screening is not because some natural characteristic of a person that people think means they are less of a human than others.
Slashdot Mirror
The over enforcement of the CRA which caused too many low income people to be given home mortgages that they couldn't properly afford is one example. It also cause this high risk loans to be packaged and sold off into the derivatives market that as regulation in 2003 and 2005 attempted to deal with the situation but failed to attack the real problems within it.
And not, this is not an attack on the Community reinvestment act, it's a complaint on how it became administrated over the years -enforcement here and there and ignoring limits or opening limits when it was obvious there were problems instead of dealing with the problems itself.
If the laws get rid of the purposeful attempt at manipulating the economic activity for purely political purposes and puts some real economic consideration into the regulations for the safety of the consumer, then yes.
The entire point was that passing laws for the sake of passing them or for political purposes is without consideration of real world economics is what got us into this mess when the banks took advantage of it. Fixing the problem would require new laws to undo the old laws and make them appropriate to regulate the industry effectively for both the consumer and the banks.
Passing laws isn't necessarily the problem. You will need to pass laws to undo the damage being caused by the old laws. The trick is to pass effective and not just symbolic laws or laws designed for political advantage.
This is America, you are free to remain as willfully ignorant as you want. Just don't get upset when people look at you like you're an idiot or something and don't take you serious..
Sigh.. Your only half wrong. The problem was incorrect and and improper regulation with a lack of enforcement in certain areas and over enforcement in others. It has the hall marks of too much government intervention as well as i got mine attitudes.
When you ask what the problem was, you find it was toxic assets. Wehn you ask what that was, you find it's derivitives. When you ask what that was, you find it is loan packages being sold as investment vehicles. When you ask why it was a problem, you find several answers like the law requiring banks to keep their investments separate from their investor's or customer's investments being repealed while at the same time, requiring a certain amount of home loans and other loans being made to low income and disadvantage portions of the populations. You also had government sponsored enterprises backing those loans which ended up being packaged and sold as investments (derivatives) to the banks under the impression the government would back the loans. This commanded a higher amount and meant that risk wasn't much of a factor and it was actually considered a safe bet as well as a lucrative bet because the interest rates on the low income loans werre generally higher then normal loans. When the local banks were able to sell these off, they could make more loans which inflated prices creating the need for higher values loans and compounding the problems when the loans would default because they in fact were not government backed.
Long story short, the problem was not too little government intervention, but ineffective regulation and improper enforcement of regulation. You can actually have the government involved in an area of commerce and not do any good if they do not act in the appropriate fashion. That is what happened, they pushed incompatible goals which directly caused the problems in some cases and encouraged the problems in others. The problem is not government involvement or the lack thereof. It is improper involvement and ineffective enforcement of regulation.
That's ping -t metropolisatmetrotown.com from a CMD prompt for windows users.
I was going to say something similar. If your going to film a cop or a security guard getting busy with someone, make sure you have someone documenting you. A go pro is relatively cheap (there are similar self contained bullet even cheaper) and will not attract too much attention.
Then if something like this happens, put it on the evening news. Put it on the interweb, and put it in evidence for the court case to free whomever on the trumped up charge as well as helping sue the piss out of everyone.
When I say the courts were doing it long before you were born, well before your parents were born, and well before anyone you know who is alive today was born, you have truly showed you do not know what you are talking about.
Really, you are saying that because I point out what had happened for over 200 years, you are saying I am not qualified to discuss the validity of your relatively new idea?
Yeah.. I'll buy that for a dollar..lol.
Not really. If they don't believe in the cause enough to over look that, they might have been distracted by the latest Brittany Spears blunder or something too.
Those people will be somewhat small in comparison to the gains. However, I do agree that it probably could be taken too far and turn a lot of people off. But having babes or bare chested firefighters doing something for the event that isn't indicative of a sexual act or something that would just gross most people out would likely help more then hurt.
Actually, I think they are. A protest is not necessarily selling a product, it's selling the idea that there is support for the product. The product is generally being sold to whatever they are protesting against but by selling sex, it increases the appearance of support for their cause by the inclusion of morons thinking with their dicks.
Imagine if you will, 20 prudently dresses women holding a rally to support $insertcause. Now imagine 10 scantly dressed 21 year old hotties and 10 muscle bound shirtless men doing the same for the same cause. You will have a base showing for the prudent women because the cause is what is there. But you will have added women and men interested in looking at the hot bodies of the people involved so there will likely be an above base showing for the event. In the end, the people thinking with their primitive instincts lend the appearance of wider spread support increasing the power for the cause. So using sex to sell a concept is a powerful tool for a cause and I think that the sale of sex (metaphorically) is actually intended to some of not a large degree.
Thanks, I just discovered kefir not too long ago and did not know it was easy to make safely.
Not according to the courts dating back as far as the early 1800's. That BTW, is a little more then a few decades.
And I don't think it says what you think it says. You would think if you read the amendment as one sentence. However, the courts have and do frequently read it as two sentences and have read it within the historical contexts to get both. With the change of the administrative searches being separate, this distinction doesn't come up much but it is still there.
Please read that again and ask yourself why the term unreasonable was placed in there if there aren't reasonable searches that do not fall into that category. Now, ask yourself why the government thinks it can get away with what you think is a violation of the constitution. Also, ask yourself why congress created a law allowing searches at ports of entry without warrant during the second session of the very first congress seated in the US.
This is the case, but I would argue that the vast majority of accusation of the same stem from someone either not knowing what they are talking about or are confused to some aspect of it.
The courts have went back and forth on the premise of reasonable verses warrant with exceptions. However, since the early to mid 70's (that i can remember anyways- there was a junk yard case in NY but I think it goes back further then that) they have held that administrative searches were separate and legal due to the interests of the state. This is how a regulator can enter a bank and search it's records for signs of violations of regulations. This is how OSHA or other agencies can enter employment facilities and search for safety hazards and the MSDS materials for chemicals and stuff. This is how the government can require commercial drivers, airline pilots, train engineers, and bus drivers to undergo pre-employment and random drug screenings.
We may get to the same opinion about warrantless searches. But I doubt I will ever compare them with what Rosa Parks did simply because there is a reason for the Airport screening that is legitimate in appearance where as there was no legitimacy to the discrimination of a person based on factors they had absolutely no control over. Perhaps if you could show me where whites get waved through while minorities have to wait or something. But as far as I know, they are taking steps to screw just as many if not more white people as minorities specifically to make the case that isn't happening. That's why 80 year old grandmas are yanked out of wheelchairs and 3 year old children are getting groped- to show it's not a racist or profiling experience.
Couple of notes here. This is purely anecdotal so don't take it as the Gospel. I was on IV antibiotics not too long ago followed by oral antibiotic for a condition called Diverticulitis.
Anyways, while I was on the antibiotic, I wasn't to have milk or milk based foods (yogurt, ice cream so on). I was told it would reduce the effectiveness of the antibiotic and the treatment wouldn't work. After I finished the oral antibiotics, I was instructed to drink at least 2 ounces of kefir at least twice a day by my doctor in order to replenish the "good" bacteria in the gut. I imagine this is the gut flora being talked about.
I guess what I'm getting at is, check with your doc first if you are going to do something like this. You might need to wait until your off the antibiotic first.
What's this about kefir.
I buy it in the health food section about once a week. Please explain because I would love to have it more often but at $5 a quart, I think a quart a week is enough. on the other hand, I go through about a gallon and a half of milk a week.
Then I guess you have a case against them so file suit.
Just a note. Oil wouldn't go up for long because Iran doesn't sell much of it's oil. Most of fit has been embargoed for the last year or two and it's output has been restricted for a while.
If we went to war with Iran, I project the price of oil actually dropping because investors know the eventuality would be the oil being sold in larger quantities then it is now.
However, I don't see the US or any western nation going into Iran. I think it would eventually happen that a neighboring state would invade and western nations would become allies in aid. Iran is a more complicated mess then Iraq or Afghanistan. We missed opportunities to support a revolt that apparently was happening without any western instigation. The public of Iran would likely not take to us deposing their government.
You mean like the guy who ignores the speed limit then whines about getting a ticket because the road is obviously safe enough for faster travel? Again, I don't see the parallels to someone standing up for what amounts to society demanding they are lower class people then others based completely on natural and uncontrollable traits.
The key issue with Rosa Parks was that she was demanding to be treated as an equal to someone who's only observable difference was race. That is the significant mark of Rosa's story. The fact that the incident was orchestrated, she was arrested, or anything else in between is just the mechanics of the situation.
I do not believe they are and evidently, neither does the courts or anyone with the power to stop it. Anyone who has been subject to the searches have the ability to sue in retaliation if it was a violation. If it was a violation, her defense to the crime should have been the 1st and 4th amendment grants her the right to protest violations of her rights.
I think if you looked at it more, you will find that the government is not wrong, the courts support or allow it to happen, there is a history of them allowing it to happen long before airplanes were created and even the first congress of the US in it's second session allowed unwarranted searches and ports or entry by law- that BTW, has survived court challenges and is still on the books to this day.
Then you are intentionally blind and deaf. It states it in the second paragraph of the page you actually linked to.
Here is a recap, Iraq possessed WMDs that were supposed to be destroyed according to the armistice that ended the first gulf war. They failed to prove this disarmament happened and while attempting to interrupt verification activities by international groups, actively presented themselves as still having the WMDs and capabilities to create more (we later find out from questioning Saddam after his capture that this was because Saddam feared the neighboring countries would otherwise think they were vulnerable to attack and invade them so he purposely create this impression). They failed to disclose prohibited and duel use materials purchased through Russia and France during their exploitation of the oil for food program and embargo and let UN weapons inspectors find them specifically to appear as if they still had WMD capabilities and create an international sensation when the weapons inspectors reported them. BTW, the quarterly reports are still available online if you care to look at what was actually in them and compare it to what was claimed by people. If you do, pay close attention to the reports before before march 2003.
Iraq had been supporting terrorist activities. This is irrefutable as it is well known Saddam was offering rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine and other areas, and hosted safe havens and training compounds for known terrorist groups in the past and even attempted to operate Iraq's own terrorist activities. The US and England had always held that Iraq was a terrorist nation or more precisely a state sponsor of terrorism and a state sponsor of international terrorism since 1979 with a brief exception in 1982-1990 (where I'm not sure the UK went along with) where we aided them with non-lethal military supplies and funding to fight their war against Iran. Look up Judith S. Yaphe's 911 commission testimony for more information on Iraq and Terrorism. You will find an honest look into the threat and associations of Iraq and terrorism that isn't an automatic yes or no response.
Anyways, after 9/11 happened, Bush changed the nations strategic defense against terrorism from a react nature to a proactive nature. In other words, instead of responding to incidents and using police work to thwart it or deal with it after it happened, we were now using military and other resources once reserved to stop it or retaliate against it. The major differences is that the US now took a proactive stance and considered the sponsors of terrorism to be just as bad as the terrorist themselves (before, we respected the sovereignty of the nations involved and the terrorists largely attack US military and government outposts instead of the civilian population). This directive is BTW, something Obama has continued to do on a lesser scale with the drone strikes in foreign countries.
There was the set up. Now the reasons, Iraq's known connections to terrorism (Which some narrow minded people claim is a connection to Al Qaeda as if it's the only set of terrorist out there), combined with Iraq's failure to verify-ably disarm their WMDs and the possibilities of giving those WMDs to terrorist entities, along with terrorists attacking civilian targets (before, they generally targeted US military of government institutions when they attacks the US), the US and Un
I actually have indemnity insurance so I don't have that problem.
But I consider that pretty brash, demanding that you are entitled to something more then someone is willing to give you. And it is not like the person doesn't have other options available. They can pay for the abortion themselves, go to a clinic like Planned Parenthood who BTW, has spent more money campaigning for democrats this year then the government gives them in a year (so much for ideology), or pay for the abortions themselves.
Even if the person doesn't live in an area with a high minority population (planned parenthood will not set up an abortion clinic in an area without a high minority population), they subsidize the costs of a private medical professional to perform the abortion. And yes, I still consider Planned Parenthood to be a racist organization bent on stopping minorities from reproducing in the same faith of their founder the eugenicists Margarete Sanger.
Don't let entry in the term port of entry confuse you. It does not mean only a place where someone enters the country. It means a place where people and or goods enter and exit the country officially. The government can search a ship entering or existing the country under the law they passed.
Actually, the government can search people and things leaving the country. The law I spoke about specifically allowed that. The precedent has already been set which is largely why no one has been able to sue to stop the TSAs actions on the grounds of constitutionality. Everyone who gets searched at the airports would have grounds for suit should that not be true.
At the point when international flights became popular enough that entire airports are designated for them. A flight from Canada cannot land at just any airport (well, it can in some limited situations with approved status). It has to go to an airport designated as a port of entry. You may know these more commonly as international airports. Generally, international is somewhere in the common name.
Well, then fly somewhere, object to the screening, let them do it under duress, then try to sue and let the court tell you the same thing I did. Or better yet, get into trouble, get cited, claim 4th amendment rights, and see if you don't hear what I just told you.
BTW, cases have been tossed out specifically over this same charge by claiming constitutional rights where they apply. I actually know a woman who was cited with disorderly conduct and failing to obey a lawful order from a public safety officer when she refused to leave a hallway outside a court room because she had a constitutional right to advocate for the defendant of a case (domestic violence gone wrong- neighbor stopping a man from beating his wife was charge for assault because he told her to leave him in front of the cops- the community was in an uproar over it happened and the judge ordered the hallway cleared and this woman refused to leave).
lol. Great catch.
As for the founders, they did create a situation where warrants or cause were not needed for a search even though they forbid themselves from "unreasonable searches" and required a warrant to be supported by probable cause and describing the place, person to be search and items they are searching for. It is clear to me that they envisions situations to where a search was not unreasonable or needing a warrant.
Now I can say they ever envisions airport security, but given the fact, I can say they didn't expressly forbid it either.
lol.. Nothing I said would interfere with that. It would simply stop from making it "public business" by taxing the public and the government (which is by nature public) paying for it. Big difference there. I don't really care what you do, just don't expect me to pay for it.
As for the rest, I think you are pretty much spot on.
She was at an airport. Most airports are considered ports of entry. The first US congress, in the second term, actually passed the first warrantless search laws which was held ass valid and necessary by the supreme court of the United State of America because the right of sovereignty requires the country to be secure in it's borders.
Now, I have to ask you. If the very people who either wrote the Constitution, signed the constitution, or were sent to be part of congress based on the newly created constitution thought it was pertinent and fine and within the bounds of the constitution to search without a warrant at the port of entries, what makes you think the US constitution prohibits it?
I ask this because it appears you have some insight that the founders didn't in this situation.
I'm not seeing the parallels here. While Rosa Parks was actually a plant and political operative when refusing to give her seat up, the rules on the bus had nothing to do with safety of the bus or passengers, had nothing to do with even the impression of it nor did they attempt to claim it was. The rules on the bus were solely for elevating one race of people above another based entirely on natural allocations of pigment that is completely uncontrollable by the individual being repressed.
The airport screening on the other hand, whether effective or not, is all about the safety of the people and equipment/facilities involve. If Rosa Parks refused an Airport screening, I seriously doubt anything would have became of it even remotely like what happened on the bus.
I find it disingenuous and somewhat offensive comparing the two. Airport screening is not because some natural characteristic of a person that people think means they are less of a human than others.
I guess as long as you don't take your toes in the bathroom stalls, it's fair game in the airport.