Posted on 08/04/2005 7:34:11 AM PDT by bobsunshine
The New York Civil Liberties Union will file suit against the city Thursday to keep police from searching the bags of passengers entering the subway, organization lawyers said.
The suit, which will be filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, will claim that the two-week old policy violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and prohibitions against unlawful searches and seizures, while doing almost nothing to shield the city from terrorism.
It argues that the measure also allows the possibility for racial profiling, even though officers are ordered to randomly screen passengers. "While concerns about terrorism of course justify -- indeed, require -- aggressive police tactics, those concerns cannot justify the Police Department's unprecedented policy of subjecting millions of innocent people to suspicionless searches," states the suit, a partial copy of which was provided to Newsday.
Names of the plaintiffs -- subway riders who object to the searches -- were redacted in the copy, but are expected to be released Thursday morning.
A city Law Department spokeswoman said that since officials had not yet received the suit, she could not yet comment. The city is named as a defendant, along with the police department and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. Thursday, before the suit was released, Kelly said that the searches were "just one more layer, one more tool." "No one thinks that will be the solution, but it does give a potential terrorist something more to think about," he said.
The civil liberties union has criticized the searches as over-reaching since Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced the measure on July 21, after terrorists targeted London's mass transit system for the second time in two weeks. It also calls the stops ineffective because terrorists can walk through entrances where police are not screening.
(Excerpt) Read more at nynewsday.com ...
Question - does the Constitution grant you the right to drink alcoholic beverages? (not a trick question, a serious one).
If it is unconstitutional, you still have to obey it.
These are PRIVILEDGES... you do have the RIGHT to move about the country as you want to, but not by the means restricting you. so, you have the RIGHT to WALK and horseback, a priviledge to use the road
Ask Zavien. He's the one with an interesting view of our Constitution.
I asked you. Do you think the Constitution grants us a right to consume alcoholic beverages, even though that right is not enumerated in the Constitution?
WOw, you are the one that didn't know that are Rights are enumerated... The first 10 Admendments are called the Bill of RIGHTS, these admendments guarantee your rights as a citizen of the UNited States, unless of course you aren't from here... EH?
Based on your profile, you seem to have bought the costume, but not read the book.
It was a simple question:
An unconstitutional law is...
You seem to have no answer.
It is a case that is fundamental to understanding the Constitution and the law.
So we'll add this:
Peace officers swear to...
A. Enforce all laws on the books
B. Obey all commands by superior officers
C. Uphold the Constitution
But we will probably just get another rant.
You are really not kidding.
You think our rights are enumerated.
So, to you, it must appear that we have no constitutional right to travel at all. Correct?
And if the government chose to start licensing the use of computers, or requiring TPA chips, that would also be within the legitimate powers of government?
Wow.
OK OK, that IS a good question.
The answer is no. And Zavien won't be able to figure out why I answered that way.
And I should add "Cheers!" as I hoist my drink.
When an act of the legislature is repugnant or contrary to the Constitution, it is, ipso facto, void.
The courts have the power, and it is their duty, when an act is unconstitutional, to declare it to be so; but this will not be done except in a clear case and, as an additional guard against error, the Supreme Court of the United States refuses to take up a case involving Constitutional questions, when the court is not full.
This doesn't excuse the law abider to not follow the law of the land..
You can drive, but you are limited by law on how fast, and direction, ie one way streets and do not enters...
You are limited by public transit, you have to follow the laws that allow you to ride...
NO, I did not say that you do not have a right to travel, you do not have a right to ride the train..
I would say that the feds should be more constrained regarding rights such as driving, with the states having regulatory power (which they did, or at least used to), with the feds regulating travel across state lines and reciprocity of state licenses.
So I think we have a basic right to travel. The manner in which we travel, however, is subject to regulation, depending upon what it is. If you want to walk, there are a lot few regulatory options (don't jaywalk) than taking the train (submit to a security search before being allowed to board, and don't drink or eat on the trains).
Just because you can't drink a Coke on the subway, does that mean you don't have a right to drink beverages? Of course not. But organizations have the power to restrict activities or set conditions for using an organization's facilities.
My answer is NO, also.
A guy who has only been registered in march, knows all about me...check this out...
I think it's quite plain that the federal and state governments have overstepped the bounds on restriction of travel. The Founders would have been displeased, but fortunately for those in power, they, and their immediate descendants, are long dead and buried.
However, the 9th and 10th SHOULD constrain the ability of the feds to prohibit you from drinking alcoholic beverages, making regulation of such a state or local concern (not that they let such stop them much any more). But at least in theory, when people talk of rights outside what is enumerated in the Constitution, those rights are SUPPOSED to be worked out between the states and their respective citizens, with the 9th telling the feds to butt out. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen much any more, but the concept remains the same - unenumerated rights do not mean federally-guaranteed rights - a subtle but very important difference, with the former recognizing judicial restraint and the latter calling for judicial activism.
Yeah.
I noticed that.
Haru is a retread.
Yeah, more specific constitutional language is always better. Like, say, the EU constitution, which is about 700 pages long. Maybe we should modernize and adopt it as our basic law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.