VIDEO: Pastor, Beaten By Border Police, Tells His Story At Tea Party

Pastor Steve Anderson was returning to the United States when a border checkpoint demanded to search his vehicle. He refused, citing the 4th Amendment, and was beaten for his trouble.

While I don’t agree with every single point of his message, Pastor Anderson tells an amazing story and presents us with a stark reminder of just how far we have come in the name of security. As he says, if the 4th Amendment is not sacred, why should we expect the government to protect the 1st, the 2nd, or any other part of the Constitution?

The Fourth Amendment forbids "unreasonable searches and seizures." The basis for the "border exception" is that borders and ports are vulnerabilities for the country that make routine searches and seizures in their vicinity reasonable under the Fourth Amendment even without a warrant.

Since, as a matter of history and legal precedent, American law has from the beginning recognized this "border exception" to the Fourth Amendment, you cannot fairly or accurately pose as if your views are already the law. If you have a credible case to make, it must rest on some premise other than claiming that you have the law on your side. You do not.

According to this analysis (http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2008/10/aclu-23-of-us-population-lives-in-constitution-free-zone.ars) about 2/3rds of the US population now live in ridiculously defined ‘border’ areas where the 4th amendment has become a dead letter. I wonder how folks would feel if the 2nd amendment had this ‘border’ exception and the border was so liberally defined.

Anyone who has driven through these checkpoints in Kali and the southwest can see that they are a joke as far as effective border enforcement goes. They never report on their false positive (harassment with no violation found) rate, but regardless these internal checkpoints are a tacit admission that the actual border itself is poorly controlled.

From these observations a reasonable person might conclude that this sort of security theatre is little more than a PR operation, window dressing for the submitizens. Or worse, a psy-op to condition the multitudes who are exposed to this that violating the 4th amendment under precedent is a normal and expected government function.

We used to ridicule the East German’s border guard mentality, now we make excuses for it. Was the pastor a confrontational pinhead before or after the incident? By his own account, perhaps. Pathetic even. About as pathetic as a canary in a coal mine. Not nearly as pathetic as the just-following-orders mentality our public servants and their fig bearers display.

The analysis you cite is from the ACLU -- a radical left wing group given to exaggeration, falsehood, and scare tactics.

Comparisons of US border enforcement to East Germany are absurd. US border enforcement is woefully inadequate and feeble -- as indicated by the millions of illegals here and the massive flows of illegal drugs into the country. Stating the obvious, US intelligence rates the Mexican border as our prime vulnerability for the infiltration of terrorists and WMD components.

The "border exception" is limited to routine searches, and other restrictions apply depending on the facts. I recommend that you read the following law review article as a dispassionate introduction to the "border exception" and the limitations on it:

http://www.law2.byu.edu/jpl/Vol%2019.2/2Adams.pdf

It should help to allay your concerns -- or at least make you better informed on a complicated subject.

Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out.

As far as the ACLU, if they treated ‘shall not be infringed’ literally they’d be regarded more favorably. As it is their concern about the wide latitude of the definition of border is no different than conservatives concerns over incremental gun control. What specifically in their analysis did you find to be false?

The ‘border region’ definition of border may be lawful, it doesn’t comport with the spirit of the 4th amendment against warrant-less searches or the historical concern over general warrants (and surely the implied search powers you reference are the embodiment of a general warrant). I would also question whether these precedence respect the right of the people to be secure in their persons and property when such searches under flimsy pretext can lead to asset forfeiture without any criminal charges.

The little bit in the 4th amendment about the people being secure in their persons and property has pretty much been thrown out with such constructions as ‘reduced expectations of privacy’ when out and about.

Perhaps a better comparison than to E. Germany would be the current UK practice of cordon and search for weapons (defined as anything beyond a butter spreader) among pedestrians. If instead of drugs or visa violations the Border Patrol were looking for ‘large capacity feeding devices’ or ‘assault weapons’ out and about rather than at the actual border, the taste in your mouth might be a little less palatable.

I suspect the quality of these concerns will become apparent when the quantity and scope become more widespread with technology such as millimeter wave imaging. Right now there is precedence against such technologies without warrants, except at the border.

I once had a liberal tell me the Bill of Rights was complicated too. When conservatives get in line, the bigger concern becomes, what exactly are we trying to conserve anymore?

The ACLU study is alarmist, unbalanced, and extreme in suggesting that "anything goes" in the way of search and seizure under the border exception. That is not the case as the border exception does not override numerous other significant restraints on search and seizure in border areas.

Moreover, except for Customs offices at ports and airports, in practice the full effect of the border exception is limited to the Mexican border -- so much so that it is sometimes said that it is really a Mexican border exception.

As for the "spirit" of the Fourth Amendment, that is the kind of loose talk that conservative originalist judges and scholars bristle at. Since the border exception rests on an express grant of authority under the Constitution, was written into statutory law by the earliest Congress and continued in force since then, and has been recognized as valid by the Supreme Court for more than 200 years, it stands on solid ground and easily passes originalist scrutiny.

If concerns for the health of the Fourth Amendment are fairly compared with those for the Second Amendment, it will be seen that Fourth Amendment principles and case law are vigorous and deeply entrenched in American law and practice. Meanwhile, the Second Amendment suffers much infringement and rests almost entirely on the recent Heller decision, which itself hangs on a 5-4 vote and is vulnerable to reversal if Obama gets to replace one of its majority.

This man is a kook who decided to take on Border Patrol while they were doing their job. He was at a lawful check point, and refusing to cooperate with authorities. For those of you that support him- try what he did at one of the many DWI checkpoints and see where that gets you. We have a local kook like him, our local kook punched a firefighter while the firefighter was fighting a brush fire. I think our kook is going to be gone for a while- he is charged with numerous felony charges.

For those of you that believe only hispanics need to be questioned in pursuit of drug and human smugglers- I hate to be the one to tell you, but many whites are here illegally, and have been caught smuggling. If we quit “harrassing” the white folk I think the cartel would figure that out pretty quick and before we knew it most of the smugglers would be white. Just my opinion.

Like it or not, the border exception is an old one.

Nice try.

In their own history, the current incarnation of the US Border Patrol traces its roots to 1934 when your friend and mine-Communist President Franklin D.Roosevelt "combined the Bureau of Immigration and the Bureau of Naturalization into the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1933. The first Border Patrol Academy opened as a training school at Camp Chigas, El Paso, in December 1934. Thirty-four trainees attended classes in marksmanship and horsemanship."

Additional tinkering by Communist President Bill J (BJ) Clinton led to "modernization efforts" followed by Homeland Security Initiatives from George W. Bush (The "Vote Freedom First President) to the point where just CPB has in the neighborhood of some 19,000 agents.

That,my friend, is an army by any definition. An army with apparently nothing to do but harass legitimate citizens while undocumented workers flood into all areas of the country.

Again, in their own words from their own history:

The modernization of the Patrol advances at a dizzying rate as new generations of agents develop innovative ways to integrate the contemporary technology into field operations. New and specialized technology is being created within the Border Patrol that holds increasing potential to assist agents in fulfilling the mission of the Patrol.

All the "border exceptions" in the world cannot hide the fact the Federal Government has gone near completely feral and is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Beyond question, the border exception long predates the founding of the Border Patrol and is based on the Constitution's specific grant of power to the federal government to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations."

As Chief Justice Rhenquist stated for the Supreme Court in United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985):

Since the founding of our Republic, Congress has granted the Executive plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or a warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country. See United States v. Ramsey, 431 U. S. 606, 431 U. S. 616-617 (1977), citing Act of July 31, 1789, ch. 5, 1 Stat. 29.

Since the founding of our Republic, Congress has granted the Executive plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border

I see we return once again to stare decisis La-La Land.

Quote all the gibberish you can find from whatever source you wish, you will remain unable to explain by what penumbra of a vapor of a thought connects the inspection of Naval Stores at specific Ports of Entry to the suspension of 4th and 5th Amendment Protections applied against all travelers 100 miles in the interior of the formerly Sovereign States of America.

Here is the actual text of the actual Act of July 31, 1789, ch. 5, 1 Stat. 29.

An Act to regulate the Collection of the Duties imposed by law on the tonnage of ships or vessels, and on goods, wares and merchandises imported into the United States.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/1st_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_5

United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977) discusses the statutory language:

That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border should, by now, require no extended demonstration. The Congress which proposed the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, to the state legislatures on September 2, 1789, 1 Stat. 97, had, some two months prior to that proposal, enacted the first customs statute, Act of July 31, 1789, c. 5, 1 Stat. 29. Section 24 of this statute granted customs officials "full power and authority" to enter and search "any ship or vessel, in which they shall have reason to suspect any goods, wares or merchandise subject to duty shall be concealed. . . ." This acknowledgment of plenary customs power was differentiated from the more limited power to enter and search "any particular dwelling-house, store, building, or other place . . ." where a warrant upon "cause to suspect" was required. The historical importance of the enactment of this customs statute by the same Congress which proposed the Fourth Amendment is, we think, manifest.

The text of the Constitution, the common law, the writings of the Framers and their contemporaries, the laws of Congress, and the decisions of the Supreme Court all support the border exception as constitutional. Insisting otherwise is a demonstration of invincible ignorance.

United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977) discusses the statutory language:

So now we retreat to stare decisis 1977 since stare decisis 1985 is too weak.

Continue to unravel the ball of string, you will eventually reach the text of Act of July 31, 1789, c. 5, 1 Stat. 29 and be amazed at the qualitative difference between a limited Customs Authority and an army of 19,000 agents in just one agency with nearly unlimited "border exception" powers as they move within a hundred mile "Constitution Free" zone within the United States.

To view it any other way is is a demonstration of invincible desire to abdicate your solemn duties as a Sovereign Citizen and appease naked tyranny.

You may wish to compare and contrast your view with this view from a member of the "Greatest Generation" as he describes his encounter with Communist President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Customs Agency.

Enjoy. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/542695/posts

To reject stare decisis and precedent is to reject the common law and essential limitations on the judiciary under the Constitution. Here is Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78:

To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them . . .

And it is ill-informed at best to call areas near borders "constitution free." Here is a law review that offers an introduction to the "border exception" and the many limitations on it:

http://www.law2.byu.edu/jpl/Vol%2019.2/2Adams.pdf

To reject stare decisis and precedent is to reject the common law and essential limitations on the judiciary under the Constitution

No need to tell me. But reality in the 20 and 21st Century means stare decisis is anything the vast overwhelming majority of Bolsheviks declare it to be and then only until they change their mind.

One reason it is important to read original documents and reflect on the vicious misuse of the concept over time.

I have some acquaintance with judges and courts. For most cases, in most courts, stare decisis works as intended. The problems come in highly politicized cases.

The Warren Court viewed stare decisis as having less force in federal constitutional cases. Conservatives opposed this doctrine when liberals used it as a sledge hammer against conservative precedents.

My sense of the matter is that in challenging liberal precedents, we do best by originalist lines of reasoning and citing precedents that treat stare decisis as having diminished force in constitutional cases. But we would be fools if we generally disparage stare decisis since it is essential to the proper functioning of courts.

But we would be fools if we generally disparage stare decisis since it is essential to the proper functioning of courts

First, I do not "see" liberal and conservative. I "see" Bolshevik and Oligarachy. Sometimes Bolshevik AS Oligarachy. Or more properly, Kakistocracy.

Second, the only people I see who disparage stare decisis are the people who use stare decisis as a cudgel to invert it.

Thus we have "penumbras" and "international law" somehow used to upend clear English Constitutional Language.

I must continue to direct your attention the qualitative difference between a limited inspection of Naval Stores at designated locations and the unlimited warrentless search of all travelers 100 miles inland from any border.

If you cannot see it, I cannot help you.

So, the author of the most recent Supreme Court border exception opinion, the late, staunchly conservative and Republican Chief Justice Rhenquist, was actually a Bolshevik? Or unqualified even though he graduated first in his class at Stanford law school? Call Guinness for a listing in their book of records: you are the first to make such claims.

The Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Are routine searches of vessels in ports or near the country's shores reasonable? The same Congress that wrote the Fourth Amendment thought so. And since vessels near ports and the country's maritime borders can be routinely searched, then what about routine searches of vehicles at or near land borders?

When courts considered the issue, they concluded that the situations are similar, with marine vessels and land vehicles both being movable conveyances, and the country's maritime and land borders both needing protection against illicit entry of persons and materials.

Like it or not, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, there is an essential similarity between searches of vessels in ports or near our country's maritime borders and searches of vehicles at or near our land borders.

So you think the calamity of our current border policy is the unintended consequence of a rational decision process?

Sound suspiciously like you want to shift from the stare decisis La-La Land defense to the Smartest-Person-In-The-Room-With-The-Most-Credentials defense.

Niether rationalization will save you from the insanity of modern policy.

All the border exception rulings have done nothing, zilch, diddly to stop the flow of drugs, the flow of illegal immigrants, the flow of PRESCRIPTION drugs from Canada or, if you believe Mexico, the flow of weapons into their crime free paradise from the United States.

What has happened with remarkable efficiency is everyone who is NOT a criminal has been treated as though they were guilty until proven innocent and millions of dollars of undocumented expense accrued to everyone and every business who were delayed while a bunch of budding thugs interrupted every peaceable journey they could find.

In return, the Border Patrol get to crow about the handful of infractions they manage to discover in their indiscriminate dragnets which, no doubt, include infractions as silly and unproductive as seatbelt violations.

As a defender of the faith, you most obviously benefit in some way from the status quo.

I do not.

If positions were reversed you would fling poo in the other direction as fast as possible.

See you in the aftertimes, we can have a big laugh about the body count that resulted from all this nonsense.

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.