Posted on 10/29/2004 9:53:13 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
Reports are coming in that Tennessee and Kentucky State Troopers, Nation Guard troops, and other federal alphabet agencies are conducting a "routine training excercise" by stappong and inspecting ALL commercial trucks entering Tennessee at at the TN/KY border on I-65.
The trucks are being stopped and searched both visually and with bomb sniffing dogs.
Rountine? Nothing routine about it as this is the first time I remember anything like it.
So you're inferring that the officers stopping, checking, and releasing trucks in this action are merely looking for stuff to steal? You maroon ...
>> I live in E. TN and do have a few law enforcement friends <<
Corrupt cops aren't a fallacy. Look at LA County where they just busted another half dozen.
They train on their own vehicles. To train on a commercial vehicle subjects them to the lost time and money lawsuit IMO....
Somethings up.....
Off course there are corrupt cops out there ... name one 'industry' (including the Church) where there are no corrupt individuals in it. I was responding to the maroon trying to paint all officers as corrupt because of a few who are. BTW, a significant number of law enforcement officers are ex-military, an 'industry' in which the vast, vast majority are honorable and courageous. They don't change overnight or just because they leave the military.
Indeed, this isn't a withc hunt, even though it's so close to Halloween.
Let me know if ya hear what it was about if ya will......Stay safe !
I hven't heard anything more since this morning.
I have heard from a number of less-than-steller web sites something about maritime law becoming merged with other parts of law in the US, which accounts for a lot of this -- the maritime jurisdictions being expanded to include land areas and all interstate traffic, with cars being determined to be "vessels".
Have you heard anything about this? What I've seen so far has been pure hearsay, but I thought someone else might have looked into it more.
I'll play! Define "unreasonable".
Okie Dokie...gonna go get my beamer waxed & buffed then.......trick er treat WD !
http://www.dikkiedikonline.nl/BMW_babe_02.jpg
Stay safe !
Something educational related to our discussion.
Imagine getting an airplane ticket for every state you flew over from DC to LA. Imagine paying state taxes on an article that passed through more than one state. How about having a drivers license for every state you drive through?
What if some states didn't accept other states drivers licenses?
There are practical reasons for fed law.
I've heard of it too - A lot of folks claim asset forfeiture comes from maritime law. Sorry, I don't have any sources. If you find any, please ping me.
Stop speeding then. I guarantee that you won't be stopped anymore.
I can think of two definitions of unreasonable.
The first is subjective. It's definition relies totally on opinion of the person making the assertion. "I don't think $5 for bananas is unreasonable". You could easily substitute 'normal' for 'unreasonable' in these sentences and not change the meaning of what was said.
The second definition is objective: That which occurs without reason. As in, "If you want to search someone, you need a reason to suspect them of a crime." You could substitute 'personalized suspicion' for reasonable in that sentence without changing the meaning of what was said.
The subjective definition has no meaning but what one chooses to assign to it, based on one's own opinion. Unfortunately, this is the definition courts have chosen to use. Because 'unreasonable' means anything they want it to mean, it becomes meaningless. Such a definition used in context of the 4th Amendment is akin to having no 4th Amendment at all, because government ultimately will have the final say on what is 'reasonable'. Since their pronouncements of what constitutes reasonable behavior changes over time with the fickle whims of the courts, it is by definition a 'living Constitution' interpretation. The court has used the 'reasonable person' test as a measure here. That is, if they believe a 'reasobable person' believes they have a right to be free of search, they may uphold their 4th Amendment right. But note, that as 4th Amendment protections diminish over time, what a reasonable person may expect will diminsh as well. This can lead to nothing but an ineffective 4th Amendment, which is precisely what we have now, and quite on purpose.
It is my strong belief that the founders intended the use of the objective definition. As rights are inherent and unalienable, they do not change over time or with people's perceptions or opinions. The objective definition stands the test of time and is beholden to no one's whims. Also, the 4th Amendment was the Founder's answer to the King's General Warrants, which were used to search people who lacked any individualized suspicion, in other words, fishing expeditions.
Don't forget the Second Amendment ---
Most of the numerous Federal gun-control laws are based on the Interstate Commerce Clause --- The law usually says e.g., "firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce." [ 18 USC section 922(g) ].
The only reason the ICC was included in the Constitution was to prevent states from interfering with the commerce of other states.
Having states have reciprocity with drivers licences falls within this purpose: If one state refuses trucks from other states, the flow of interstate commerce will be hindered.
The federal government's delegated power over interstate commerce is finite in this way. One of the defining characteristics of a liberal is their belief that the federal government is not one of specific, enumerated powers, and their chief instruments of circumventing this restriction have been their 'living Constitution' interpretations of the ICC and the General Welfare clause.
Most unconstitutional legislation owe's its existance to the interstate commerce clause, the general welfare clause, or the necessary and proper clause.
Ron Paul proposed legislation that said all bills must cite the constitutional power from which they originate. As you can imagine, it didn't pass.
The U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled ( 1995, I think ) that The Commerce Clause did not give Congress the power to regulate guns in school zones --- the no guns within 1000 ft of a school.
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.
