[bitt]

"However, there is one major red flag buried within the text of the bill that stems from the list of “powers” given to the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission, and it violates one of the basic tenants of the U.S. Constitution."

[trebb]

So, if there appears to be a credible threat against the rail system, they must not cross property lines or check adjacent warehouses, etc., because that would be a bad thing....they should just cross their fingers and pray.

[greylurker]

BTT

[Vendome]

That isn’t at all what it says, then again I had the benefit of the public school education so, my reading comprehension may have failed here

[Bon of Babble]

OK - let's hear what Mr. Sessions has to say about this.

Paging Mr. Sessions, Mr. Jeff Sessions, please pick up the nearest courtesy phone, there is an urgent call for you:

[Disambiguator]

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

Tenants? TENANTS? I think tenETS is the proper term here.

Sheesh.

[Mariner]

Are there really people on this site that think this is a threat to the 4th Amendment?

If so, shame on you.

You are officially a dumb conspiracy theorist.

[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.

[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?"