Does this legislation mention that these entities can only do it for one rail and not the other?
Posted on 08/25/2017 5:27:32 AM PDT by bitt
huh ? besides any other any other argument to this,
define adjacent
define reasonable
I wonder what happens when you don’t answer the knock-knock...
Get yourself a Black’s Law Dictionary, Both words are defined and include a reference to a case having precedence.
Me personally? When did I ever state that? I was just passing along information the OP should have posted even if it was excerpted.
Er, that would include Trump. It says he signed it.
This is clickbait BS!
"Hey! Big Brother.
As soon as you arrive...
You'd better...get in touch with the people Big Brother,
Better get them on your side...
Keep them satisfied."
- - Rare Earth
Does this legislation mention that these entities can only do it for one rail and not the other?
hey...that actually is a good idea. I apologize. I should have done that first before I stuck my other foot in my mouth - which I seem to do a lot lately.
The 4th doesn’t exclude searches... only unreasonable searches.
A lot of cases on reasonableness - one on point is Warden v. Hayden where SCOTUS (citing McDonald v. United States) ruled
“The exigencies of the situation,” in which the officers were in pursuit of a suspected armed felon in the house which he had entered only minutes before they arrived, permitted their warrantless entry and search. McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456 . Pp. 298-300.
I’ll sit down and shut up now.
Thanx
Note this line in the text:
30. In carrying out its purposes, the Commission, through its Board or designated employees or agents, shall, consistent with federal law:
All that pesky stuff like getting warrants and subpoenas is part of what's consistent w/federal law.
“...basic tenants of...”
Sorry, but a “tenant” is a person who occupies a place; a “tenet” is a basic principle.
Sloppy English indicates sloppy logic; good way to lose.
tenets
Ping to a hyperbolic blog-pimp.
“Hey...if you don’t have anything to hide...”
Pretty much.
"... may:Enter upon the WMATA Rail System..."
thanks for the responses
I don’t even pretend to be a laywer.
I do like to offer posts for consideration.
They might end up paying more than bucks.
It’s simply astounding how criminal and treasonous this bill is to the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution.
Hopefully, the lawsuits will start.
Just wait until they say if it’s legal to do on rails, then why not highways and roads that receive federal funds?
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.