CONGRESS QUIETLY PASSED A BILL ALLOWING WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF HOMES—ONLY 1% OPPOSED IT

the LAST AMERICAN VAGABOND ^ | AUG 24, 2016 | RACHEL BLEVINS

[Jim W N]

Well said. Cudos. :)

[Jim W N]

1) This may be more like a municipal utility which has a right to enter your property for reading meters or repairing their lines/equipment once they’ve determined the need, and given notice. That is not a 4th Amendment “search” which requires a “reasonable expectation of privacy” (REP). Normally the meters/equipment are in an area that does not have a REP.

2) This is limited to premises adjacent to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority system

3) If necessary, courts will have to confine this law to within constitutional limits of probable cause and precedent that requires a warrant for house searches except for exigent circumstances or consent.

[raiderboy]

That is unconstitutional as hell. It will be struck down on the first complaint with standing. Congress has lost it’way Surely it will not renew that portion on homeland security that allows warrantless searches of every Americans communications. They look like dear in the head light on that. Just standing in the road.

[Chauncey Gardiner]

Would be nice if President Trump were to veto the bill, but the bastards probably tied to some critical bill.

[BykrBayb]

and it violates one of the basic tenants of the U.S. Constitution.

Does this mean the Constitution is merely a lease, or did you mean to say "tenets?"

[bgill]

Hope that’s all it is. But slippery slope. Utilities this week, next week who knows.

[Jim W N]

It's not a slippery slope if we remember that there are many avenues to stop unconstitutional federal acts which is federal tyranny.

- Courts.

- We the People through our elected state and federal officials

- The States themselves rejecting and nullifying unconstitutional federal acts

- Other federal branches calling out and rejecting unconstitutional federal acts. Examples:

the executive branch notifying Congress of why legislation is unconstitutional and refusing to act on it;

Congress beginning impeachment process if the executive branch continues to act unconstitutionally;

the judicial branch (SCOTUS) constitutionally striking down an unconstitutional act or law of Congress but that would be limited to only the case at hand because SCOTUS does not constitutionally make national law. It would be up to Congress to change or repeal the law.

[Whenifhow]

PING!!!

Article and ALL comments

Thanks, bitt

[Brown Deer]

Would be nice if President Trump were to veto the bill...

How can he veto it?

...was passed with overwhelming support by the United States Congress, and signed into law by President Trump...