NYCLU sues city over subway searches

NYNewsday ^ | August 4, 2005 | Joshua Robin and Dan Janison

[Zavien Doombringer]

What do you mean by priviledge? Are there other privileges, like, say, gun ownership, that the government is empowered by our Constituution to restrict?

Ok, I get it...He can't be American to ask this. He would know better... The diference between a right and a priviledge....

The second admendment guarantees the right to own a gun.. any law prohibiting a lawful citizen from owning a gun is unconstitutional. However, states can expound on those laws and restrict ownership... ie criminals.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Hmmm, EU constitution?

Uh, no... and I am sensing that you aren't in understanding of our Constitution.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

You seem to have a very broad interpretation of what the "penumbra" of the Constitution embraces.

I suppose you also believe that there is an unenumerated Constitutional "right" to privacy, as was implied in Mapp, Roe, Lawrence, among numerous other decisions that were spawned by the judicial anarchy unleashed by the Warren Court.

[Zavien Doombringer]

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.

TROLL!

[kempo]

Folks, how many sub-ways do we have in the red states? I think most of the sub-ways are in the blue states. I'm not planning on going to any blue states anytime soon and I'm never going to ride a sub-way. So I really don't care. Most of the donations to the ACLU comes from people in the blue states. Hell let them straighten things out themselves. When the the police stop having random searches and a bomb goes off in one of the sub-ways ( Its going to happen sooner are later). I promise you things will change. Just watch and see.

[dougiefresh]

"Personally, I'd like to see you pulled over every day and have a cop try to trick you into consenting to a search of your vehicle."

This one isn't hard...to date, all the terrorists have been Muslim, even though all the Muslim's are not terrorist. The cops are not trying to "trick" you into consenting...apparently, you must look like a terrorist, therefore, they want to search you car. The police and the government are not doing their job if they are just singling out every 10th person (white people, old people, nuns, etc.) and conducting random searches. Personally, if it's white middle-aged men engaging in terrorism, I would have no problem complying with a search as frequently as the authorities feel necessary to ensure everyone's safety. We KNOW now what the terrorists look like and if they change their look, we should change our search criteria. Arab looking men in their 20's and 30's carrying back packs into subway stations or looking suspicious in other way should expect to be searched.

[tfecw]

I was going to mention the 10th but I wasn't sure. I'm publik school edumicated and this Constitution thing is still new to me ;) (semi sarcasm, it's mostly my laziness to blame for the lack of knowledge) I got thrown by "the right to drink" piece of your question.

The constitution doesn't say you have a right to drink, but the 10th basically tosses everything that's not mentioned in the Constitution back to the states and people but says powers and not rights. So I got the impression that if VA had a law saying you have to be 21 to drink doesn't give me the "right" to drink if I'm 21. It just says it's legal, which could eventually change.

Or did i get to deep into semantics and think to hard about the difference between a right and being allowed to.

[dirtboy]

So I got the impression that if VA had a law saying you have to be 21 to drink doesn't give me the "right" to drink if I'm 21. It just says it's legal, which could eventually change.

Congratulations! You're more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court than most of the current sitting justices!

[dirtboy]

He was being sarcastic, Zavien.

[Zavien Doombringer]

oh, ok then....

No sarcasm tag noted....

I figured as much anyway. He has been condescending from the beginning.

[Zavien Doombringer]

WOOOHOOO a winner!

[The Grammarian]

Doesn't stop security from searching your possessions on government property (courthouses, the Kennedy Space Center, etc.). I don't see much of a problem with it.

Also, are you any relation to this particular lady?

[The Grammarian]

To clarify, I don't see much of a problem with searching subway riders if we're going to continue searching people on government property. Not to say that I don't intensely dislike being searched OR being denied entry because I am carrying a firearm or a knife.

[Haru Hara Haruko]

I am sensing that you aren't in understanding of our Constitution.

I am sensing you never actually sucessfully sensed sarcasm.

[mhking]

Driving isn't a right, it is a priviledge in all states.

What do you mean by priviledge?

THIS arguement again!?

Just damn!

OK, let's try it again.

By obtaining a driver's license, you enter into a contract with the citizens of your community in order to use the public roads -- a priviledge. You agree to responsibly use a motor vehicle on said public roads.

That is not a right. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

[Haru Hara Haruko]

And don't look too closely at those drinking laws.

They treat 18 year old adults differently from 21 year old adults. Let's see... where is the constitutional authority for THAT?

So you see how defective laws can be. If they can baldly treat two adults differently based on age, the law sausage factory clearly does not have the same quality control in place at the drafting of the Constitution.

[tfecw]

"They treat 18 year old adults differently from 21 year old adults. Let's see... where is the constitutional authority for THAT? "

Well see I can't tell if your being sarcastic or not :)

what would the constitution have to do with 21 vs 18? Also what does age have to do anything? If VA decided not to let folks over the age of 80 drive wouldn't they be allowed to do that? The only questionable part about the drinking age I see would be the federal government blackmailing the states to set the age.

[Haru Hara Haruko]

So what other laws treat two adults differently? Can I get reduced sentences or fines for being a senior citizen?

[Haru Hara Haruko]

I signed a contract? Really? Perhaps I could get a term sheet next time.

[tfecw]

"So what other laws treat two adults differently? Can I get reduced sentences or fines for being a senior citizen?"

I'm not sure what you are getting at with this. The constitution doesn't set an age does it? So what does age have to do with anything.

To answer your question with one of many examples, if you were mentally unfit you are treated different come sentence time.