Police Stopping All Cars Entering BWI (Baltimore-Washington Int'l Airport)

ABC 7 News ^

[webstersII]

"Does the Constitution give you the right to drive the approaches to an airport. I'm not picking with you. If you feel like it, talk me into it."

Wrong premise.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It merely states how those rights may be limited, given that rights are inalienable and have been provided by God.

The items which are not SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Constitution are reserved for the states to decide on. Hence, given that there is no Constitutional provision against "the right to drive the approaches to an airport" there is automatically one (at the Federal level, that is).

[Viva Le Dissention]

And to try to compare this to driving down any generic public road is a slippery slope.

Your right to drive isn't constitutionally guaranteed. What's the difference? Why is it a slippery slope?

Heck, in most states, when you get a driver's license, you impliedly consent to take a blood alcohol test, why not impliedly consent to having your car searched? If you impliedly consent to having your BLOOD searched, which is much more personal and intrusive than having your glove box searched, what is the difference?

[dmz]

bwi is 30 seconds off of the baltimore beltway and 30 minutes off of the dc beltway. the dc traffic tieups on 295 don't go anywhere near the bwi exit.

[webstersII]

"Some may not have noticed, but we are at war."

A war is something that has a definable exit strategy and obvious point of victory.

We are not at war. We are under siege from a largely unseen enemy. That takes different tactics and a different mindset.

[mindspy]

Either way, though, the government can't just search you when you're walking down the street, or sitting in your house picking your nose, or, in this case, driving into an airport.

I beg to differ. An airport is a place where the public goes. The government of the U.S. has a duty to protect the public. If the government is not diligent in their efforts to protect the public then they are violating the American citizen's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. An American has the right to board a plane and feel the government has done its best to protect their right to life, their right to liberty as in travelling where they choose and believing with a high degree of certainty they will reach their destination and the right to happiness in this case would be reaching their destination. Searching people and cars at airports is not a violation of privacy or right

[palmer]

why can't we all just walk into NORAD, maybe we just want to people watch there? why are they stopping us from entering? after all, our tax dollars paid for it.

You can. It's cumbersome and politicized but the public is allowed to visit.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Ok, fine. Show of hands, maybe?

Who here would prefer that we amend the Constitution and remove the Fourth Amendment? Don't be shy. Just say so.

I'm actually just curious.

[oceanview]

at JFK airport, the baggage search takes place before you can even enter the terminal, its done at the curb.

[GreyWolf]

Airport officials say that the sweeps are not expected to create major delays entering the airport.

That is because the delays are already so long that any increase at all would be insignificant.

[palmer]

There is no Constitutional right to fly.

Irrelevant. There is no constitutional right to walk on the sidewalk, but you are protected from being searched there by the 4th amendment.

[RightWhale]

you can't seize or search people without reasonable suspicion

Obviously, one can. Face it, it is legal for the public agency to stop anyone for any reason on public property. You have a great idea. However, it's not new, it has been had before, it has been tested, and it has failed over and over. It comes down to property rights.

[oceanview]

without being stopped and searched? so I could carry a suitcase with a bomb right into NORAD, or the Pentagon, is that right?

[Naspino]

We are at war and we have been invaded. Its like some Sci-Fi movie where the bad guy looks like me and you and his weapon comes out of his belly when needed. I don't think the constitution provided for that type of war which requires security and scrutiny of citizens.

Does anyone here disagree that we need heightened security to prevent terrorism? I think the probkem is that the government didn't ammend the constitution to provide for it -- i.e. perhaps a new war ammendment or modifying the martial law.

[Viva Le Dissention]

For curbside check-in?

If they are searching everyone that walks into the airport, whether they are flying or not, that's an illegal search.

[T.Smith]

"You might be right -- there has been so much talk about ownership lately. It might be owned by Atlanta and they were discussing selling it to a private company. Maybe its only managed privately."

I'm like you, I don't know who owns it exactly, although I suspect it's the City of Atlanta. It could be leased to a private company to run if the City Council chose to do so. It's said that doing so would eliminate any sort of need to raise sewer rates in the area (notice how they only raised rates on the people who don't vote for the members of the council? But, that's for another time) and could probably lower property taxes. If they did that, though, the mayor's family, and the families of many entrenched Atlanta politicos, might lose their jobs. The leadership of the city just screws the people and businesses so that they can keep political patronage alive. I'm just glad I live in Gwinnett!

[B Knotts]

The problem, as is stated in the article, is that they are doing this without any specific threat. That, and the fact that they are doing a general search, is what makes it unconstitutional, in my opinion.

No, it's not as bad as what they do in Israel, but...this ain't Israel. It's the U.S. of A. We're supposed to be different. We can and should put up with reasonable searches, with probable cause, under a direct threat. But when we give up our liberties in a general way, for an non-specific "danger," to ensure generic "safety," I have to wonder just what it is we're preserving.

[Naspino]

You can. It's cumbersome and politicized but the public is allowed to visit.

The point is you cannot demand to walk into the planning center of the Pentagon and see what they are doing. Its public but closed. What is the difference in saying its public, not closed, but secured.

[palmer]

Face it, it is legal for the public agency to stop anyone for any reason on public property.

Deny entry? Sure. Search and seize? No way.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Face it, it is legal for the public agency to stop anyone for any reason on public property

There's no really nice way to say this, but you're wrong. Terry v. Ohio is the seminal case on the subject.

[RightWhale]

A war is something that has a definable exit strategy and obvious point of victory

A game might. This is not a game with rules agreed beforehand. What you are witnessing is a long, slow mobilization for war. 2 years ago, after WTC911, FR held discussion of how the war would go. At the time some thought that the war would slowly ramp up until it became the massive war many expect WW III to be, nukes and all. It was just a question of schedule. Still looks that way.