To: RedRover
What do you mean? The only way to back it up at this point in time is to be a test case that goes to the USSC. And a majority-strict-contructionist USSC at that.
If you think random searches are reasonable, please explain the reasoning.
Random searches catching bombers is more like a room of chimpanzees typing the complete works of Shakespeare, than real LE work. They might get a word or two right here and there, but that's about it. Likewise, random searches might catch a bomber here and there, but, with a huge emphasis on "might", that's about it.
149 posted on
07/22/2005 11:49:26 AM PDT by
savedbygrace
("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
To: savedbygrace
IT'S NOT EVERYDAY THAT YOU GET FOLKS AT FR AGREEING WITH THE VILLAGE VOICE.
161 posted on
07/22/2005 11:51:36 AM PDT by
durasell
(Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
To: savedbygrace
The only way to back it up at this point in time is to be a test case that goes to the USSC. No, not at all. The way to back up your case is read the 5th Ammendment and quote the passage that backs up your claim that random searches on municipal subways are unconstitutional. If you're convinced that our rights are being trampled, you must have a basis for that belief.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson