Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Coffee,Tea,or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wifes Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell attheAirport?
lewrockwell.com ^ | 12/18/2002 | Nicholas Monahan

Posted on 12/21/2002 11:33:05 AM PST by Libertarian Billy Graham

 

Coffee, Tea, or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wife’s Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell at the Airport and Then Lying About Why We Put You There?

by Nicholas Monahan

This morning I’ll be escorting my wife to the hospital, where the doctors will perform a caesarean section to remove our first child. She didn’t want to do it this way – neither of us did – but sometimes the Fates decide otherwise. The Fates or, in our case, government employees.

On the morning of October 26th Mary and I entered Portland International Airport, en route to the Las Vegas wedding of one of my best friends. Although we live in Los Angeles, we’d been in Oregon working on a film, and up to that point had had nothing but praise to shower on the city of Portland, a refreshing change of pace from our own suffocating metropolis.

At the security checkpoint I was led aside for the "inspection" that’s all the rage at airports these days. My shoes were removed. I was told to take off my sweater, then to fold over the waistband of my pants. My baseball hat, hastily jammed on my head at 5 AM, was removed and assiduously examined ("Anything could be in here, sir," I was told, after I asked what I could hide in a baseball hat. Yeah. Anything.) Soon I was standing on one foot, my arms stretched out, the other leg sticking out in front of me àla a DUI test. I began to get pissed off, as most normal people would. My anger increased when I realized that the newly knighted federal employees weren’t just examining me, but my 7½ months pregnant wife as well. I’d originally thought that I’d simply been randomly selected for the more excessive than normal search. You know, Number 50 or whatever. Apparently not though – it was both of us. These are your new threats, America: pregnant accountants and their sleepy husbands flying to weddings.

After some more grumbling on my part they eventually finished with me and I went to retrieve our luggage from the x-ray machine. Upon returning I found my wife sitting in a chair, crying. Mary rarely cries, and certainly not in public. When I asked her what was the matter, she tried to quell her tears and sobbed, "I’m sorry...it’s...they touched my breasts...and..." That’s all I heard. I marched up to the woman who’d been examining her and shouted, "What did you do to her?" Later I found out that in addition to touching her swollen breasts – to protect the American citizenry – the employee had asked that she lift up her shirt. Not behind a screen, not off to the side – no, right there, directly in front of the hundred or so passengers standing in line. And for you women who’ve been pregnant and worn maternity pants, you know how ridiculous those things look. "I felt like a clown," my wife told me later. "On display for all these people, with the cotton panel on my pants and my stomach sticking out. When I sat down I just lost my composure and began to cry. That’s when you walked up."

Of course when I say she "told me later," it’s because she wasn’t able to tell me at the time, because as soon as I demanded to know what the federal employee had done to make her cry, I was swarmed by Portland police officers. Instantly. Three of them, cinching my arms, locking me in handcuffs, and telling me I was under arrest. Now my wife really began to cry. As they led me away and she ran alongside, I implored her to calm down, to think of the baby, promising her that everything would turn out all right. She faded into the distance and I was shoved into an elevator, a cop holding each arm. After making me face the corner, the head honcho told that I was under arrest and that I wouldn’t be flying that day – that I was in fact a "menace."

It took me a while to regain my composure. I felt like I was one of those guys in The Gulag Archipelago who, because the proceedings all seem so unreal, doesn’t fully realize that he is in fact being arrested in a public place in front of crowds of people for...for what? I didn’t know what the crime was. Didn’t matter. Once upstairs, the officers made me remove my shoes and my hat and tossed me into a cell. Yes, your airports have prison cells, just like your amusement parks, train stations, universities, and national forests. Let freedom reign.

After a short time I received a visit from the arresting officer. "Mr. Monahan," he started, "Are you on drugs?"

Was this even real? "No, I’m not on drugs."

"Should you be?"

"What do you mean?"

"Should you be on any type of medication?"

"No."

"Then why’d you react that way back there?"

You see the thinking? You see what passes for reasoning among your domestic shock troops these days? Only "whackos" get angry over seeing the woman they’ve been with for ten years in tears because someone has touched her breasts. That kind of reaction – love, protection – it’s mind-boggling! "Mr. Monahan, are you on drugs?" His snide words rang inside my head. This is my wife, finally pregnant with our first child after months of failed attempts, after the depressing shock of the miscarriage last year, my wife who’d been walking on a cloud over having the opportunity to be a mother...and my anger is simply unfathomable to the guy standing in front of me, the guy who earns a living thanks to my taxes, the guy whose family I feed through my labor. What I did wasn’t normal. No, I reacted like a drug addict would’ve. I was so disgusted I felt like vomiting. But that was just the beginning.

An hour later, after I’d been gallantly assured by the officer that I wouldn’t be attending my friend’s wedding that day, I heard Mary’s voice outside my cell. The officer was speaking loudly, letting her know that he was planning on doing me a favor... which everyone knows is never a real favor. He wasn’t going to come over and help me work on my car or move some furniture. No, his "favor" was this: He’d decided not to charge me with a felony.

Think about that for a second. Rapes, car-jackings, murders, arsons – those are felonies. So is yelling in an airport now, apparently. I hadn’t realized, though I should have. Luckily, I was getting a favor, though. I was merely going to be slapped with a misdemeanor.

"Here’s your court date," he said as I was released from my cell. In addition, I was banned from Portland International for 90 days, and just in case I was thinking of coming over and hanging out around its perimeter, the officer gave me a map with the boundaries highlighted, sternly warning me against trespassing. Then he and a second officer escorted us off the grounds. Mary and I hurriedly drove two and a half hours in the rain to Seattle, where we eventually caught a flight to Vegas. But the officer was true to his word – we missed my friend’s wedding. The fact that he’d been in my own wedding party, the fact that a once in a lifetime event was stolen from us – well, who cares, right?

Upon our return to Portland (I’d had to fly into Seattle and drive back down), we immediately began contacting attorneys. We aren’t litigious people – we wanted no money. I’m not even sure what we fully wanted. An apology? A reprimand? I don’t know. It doesn’t matter though, because we couldn’t afford a lawyer, it turned out. $4,000 was the average figure bandied about as a retaining fee. Sorry, but I’ve got a new baby on the way. So we called the ACLU, figuring they existed for just such incidents as these. And they do apparently...but only if we were minorities. That’s what they told us.

In the meantime, I’d appealed my suspension from PDX. A week or so later I got a response from the Director of Aviation. After telling me how, in the aftermath of 9/11, most passengers not only accept additional airport screening but welcome it, he cut to the chase:

"After a review of the police report and my discussions with police staff, as well as a review of the TSA’s report on this incident, I concur with the officer’s decision to take you into custody and to issue a citation to you for disorderly conduct. That being said, because I also understand that you were upset and acted on your emotions, I am willing to lift the Airport Exclusion Order...."

Attached to this letter was the report the officer had filled out. I’d like to say I couldn’t believe it, but in a way, I could. It’s seemingly becoming the norm in America – lies and deliberate distortions on the part of those in power, no matter how much or how little power they actually wield.

The gist of his report was this: From the get go I wasn’t following the screener’s directions. I was "squinting my eyes" and talking to my wife in a "low, forced voice" while "excitedly swinging my arms." Twice I began to walk away from the screener, inhaling and exhaling forcefully. When I’d completed the physical exam, I walked to the luggage screening area, where a second screener took a pair of scissors from my suitcase. At this point I yelled, "What the %*&$% is going on? This is &*#&$%!" The officer, who’d already been called over by one of the screeners, became afraid for the TSA staff and the many travelers. He required the assistance of a second officer as he "struggled" to get me into handcuffs, then for "cover" called over a third as well. It was only at this point that my wife began to cry hysterically.

There was nothing poetic in my reaction to the arrest report. I didn’t crumple it in my fist and swear that justice would be served, promising to sacrifice my resources and time to see that it would. I simply stared. Clearly the officer didn’t have the guts to write down what had really happened. It might not look too good to see that stuff about the pregnant woman in tears because she’d been humiliated. Instead this was the official scenario being presented for the permanent record. It doesn’t even matter that it’s the most implausible sounding situation you can think of. "Hey, what the...godammit, they’re taking our scissors, honey!" Why didn’t he write in anything about a monkey wearing a fez?

True, the TSA staff had expropriated a pair of scissors from our toiletries kit – the story wasn’t entirely made up. Except that I’d been locked in airport jail at the time. I didn’t know anything about any scissors until Mary told me on our drive up to Seattle. They’d questioned her about them while I was in the bowels of the airport sitting in my cell.

So I wrote back, indignation and disgust flooding my brain.

"[W]hile I’m not sure, I’d guess that the entire incident is captured on video. Memory is imperfect on everyone’s part, but the footage won’t lie. I realize it might be procedurally difficult for you to view this, but if you could, I’d appreciate it. There’s no willful disregard of screening directions. No explosion over the discovery of a pair of scissors in a suitcase. No struggle to put handcuffs on. There’s a tired man, early in the morning, unhappily going through a rigorous procedure and then reacting to the tears of his pregnant wife."

Eventually we heard back from a different person, the guy in charge of the TSA airport screeners. One of his employees had made the damning statement about me exploding over her scissor discovery, and the officer had deftly incorporated that statement into his report. We asked the guy if he could find out why she’d said this – couldn’t she possibly be mistaken? "Oh, can’t do that, my hands are tied. It’s kind of like leading a witness – I could get in trouble, heh heh." Then what about the videotape? Why not watch that? That would exonerate me. "Oh, we destroy all video after three days."

Sure you do.

A few days later we heard from him again. He just wanted to inform us that he’d received corroboration of the officer’s report from the officer’s superior, a name we didn’t recognize. "But...he wasn’t even there," my wife said.

"Yeah, well, uh, he’s corroborated it though."

That’s how it works.

"Oh, and we did look at the videotape. Inconclusive."

But I thought it was destroyed?

On and on it went. Due to the tenacity of my wife in making phone calls and speaking with relevant persons, the "crime" was eventually lowered to a mere citation. Only she could have done that. I would’ve simply accepted what was being thrown at me, trumped up charges and all, simply because I’m wholly inadequate at performing the kowtow. There’s no way I could have contacted all the people Mary did and somehow pretend to be contrite. Besides, I speak in a low, forced voice, which doesn’t elicit sympathy. Just police suspicion.

Weeks later at the courthouse I listened to a young DA awkwardly read the charges against me – "Mr. Monahan...umm...shouted obscenities at the airport staff...umm... umm...oh, they took some scissors from his suitcase and he became...umm...abusive at this point." If I was reading about it in Kafka I might have found something vaguely amusing in all of it. But I wasn’t. I was there. Living it.

I entered a plea of nolo contendere, explaining to the judge that if I’d been a resident of Oregon, I would have definitely pled "Not Guilty." However, when that happens, your case automatically goes to a jury trial, and since I lived a thousand miles away, and was slated to return home in seven days, with a newborn due in a matter of weeks...you get the picture. "No Contest" it was. Judgment: $250 fine.

Did I feel happy? Only $250, right? No, I wasn’t happy. I don’t care if it’s twelve cents, that’s money pulled right out of my baby’s mouth and fed to a disgusting legal system that will use it to propagate more incidents like this. But at the very least it was over, right? Wrong.

When we returned to Los Angeles there was an envelope waiting for me from the court. Inside wasn’t a receipt for the money we’d paid. No, it was a letter telling me that what I actually owed was $309 – state assessed court costs, you know. Wouldn’t you think your taxes pay for that – the state putting you on trial? No, taxes are used to hire more cops like the officer, because with our rising criminal population – people like me – hey, your average citizen demands more and more "security."

Finally I reach the piece de resistance. The week before we’d gone to the airport my wife had had her regular pre-natal checkup. The child had settled into the proper head down position for birth, continuing the remarkable pregnancy she’d been having. We returned to Portland on Sunday. On Mary’s Monday appointment she was suddenly told, "Looks like your baby’s gone breech." When she later spoke with her midwives in Los Angeles, they wanted to know if she’d experienced any type of trauma recently, as this often makes a child flip. "As a matter of fact..." she began, recounting the story, explaining how the child inside of her was going absolutely crazy when she was crying as the police were leading me away through the crowd.

My wife had been planning a natural childbirth. She’d read dozens of books, meticulously researched everything, and had finally decided that this was the way for her. No drugs, no numbing of sensations – just that ultimate combination of brute pain and sheer joy that belongs exclusively to mothers. But my wife is also a first-time mother, so she has what is called an "untested" pelvis. Essentially this means that a breech birth is too dangerous to attempt, for both mother and child. Therefore, she’s now relegated to a c-section – hospital stay, epidural, catheter, fetal monitoring, stitches – everything she didn’t want. Her natural birth has become a surgery.

We’ve tried everything to turn that baby. Acupuncture, chiropractic techniques, underwater handstands, elephant walking, moxibustion, bending backwards over pillows, herbs, external manipulation – all to no avail. When I walked into the living room the other night and saw her plaintively cooing with a flashlight turned onto her stomach, yet another suggested technique, my heart almost broke. It’s breaking now as I write these words.

I can never prove that my child went breech because of what happened to us at the airport. But I’ll always believe it. Wrongly or rightly, I’ll forever think of how this man, the personification of this system, has affected the lives of my family and me. When my wife is sliced open, I’ll be thinking of him. When they remove her uterus from her abdomen and lay it on her stomach, I’ll be thinking of him. When I visit her and my child in the hospital instead of having them with me here in our home, I’ll be thinking of him. When I assist her to the bathroom while the incision heals internally, I’ll be thinking of him.

There are plenty of stories like this these days. I don’t know how many I’ve read where the writer describes some breach of civil liberties by employees of the state, then wraps it all up with a dire warning about what we as a nation are becoming, and how if we don’t put an end to it now, then we’re in for heaps of trouble. Well you know what? Nothing’s going to stop the inevitable. There’s no policy change that’s going to save us. There’s no election that’s going to put a halt to the onslaught of tyranny. It’s here already – this country has changed for the worse and will continue to change for the worse. There is now a division between the citizenry and the state. When that state is used as a tool against me, there is no longer any reason why I should owe any allegiance to that state.

And that’s the first thing that child of ours is going to learn.

December 21, 2002

Nick Monahan works in the film industry. He writes out of Los Angeles where he lives with his wife and as of December 18th, his beautiful new son.

Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com

     

 

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: policestate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700 ... 1,141-1,147 next last
To: Tauzero; general_re
To: general_re
The word 'regulate' in the context of the constitution means to make regular, not control. Furthermore, the security regulations do not regulate the buying and selling of goods or services (i.e. commerce.) The commerce clause does not give grounds for them.
# 627 by Tauzero
**********************

Our Federal government has been abusing the Commerce Clause for decades.

They even executed Timothy McVeigh under the Commerce Clause.

The government contended that blowing up a building interferes with interstate commerce.

661 posted on 12/22/2002 2:16:34 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: Tauzero
Okay, after this, I really am out for the night ;)

But judges are neither the sole nor final arbiters of the law or the constitution, so I cannot agree that that is what the law is. It is merely a long-standing usurpation.

No, I agree - the people are the final arbiters of the law and the Constitution. However, that hardly gives you much cover, since the people seem quite content with the general trend of constitutional interpretations produced by the courts. But, if you persuade enough people of the rightness of your position, then it will be so. The best way to do that might be to discuss how the law should be, rather than trying to persuade people that your interpretion represents the law as it is...

662 posted on 12/22/2002 2:20:09 AM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies]

To: exodus
You guys are killing me here - I need to sleep ;)

They even executed Timothy McVeigh under the Commerce Clause.

The government contended that blowing up a building interferes with interstate commerce.

Hardly. 18 USC 51, §1114 does not rely on the Commerce Clause.

663 posted on 12/22/2002 2:28:10 AM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 661 | View Replies]

To: general_re
To: exodus
Thank you. I am intimately familiar with the Consitution and the laws derived thereof. The Ninth Amendment is a dead letter for eminently practical reasons - namely, there is no practical way to distinguish what is and is not a right under the Ninth Amendment. You assert that the Ninth Amendment frees you from having to be searched before boarding. I suggest that the Ninth Amendment gives me the right to free health care for the rest of my natural life, daily sexual favors from the female citizen of my choice, and a salary for sitting around and watching TV. Unfortunately for both of us, the Ninth Amendment does not speak to which of us is correct in our assertions of our rights - indeed, we both could be right under the rather spare language of the Ninth Amendment...
# 634 by general_re
**********************

I don't assert that the 9th Amendment frees me from being searched. That's the 4th Amendment.

You make no sense, general_re .

Free health care would require someone sacrifice their money or time for your benefit. Daily sexual favors from the woman of your choice would be rape. Getting a salary for doing nothing can never be confused with a God-given right.

You think that the 9th Amendment doesn't apply anymore, general_re? Do you think that the men that wrote it into law were too stupid to realize that it wasn't specific?

The 9th Amendment hasn't been repealed, general_re. It's still the law of the land.

Here's the kicker, general_re. Even if the 9th Amendment had never been written, we'd still have the right to own property. We'd still have the right to get married. We'd still have the right to decide what job we wanted to work at.

And, general_re, we'd still have the right to travel.

664 posted on 12/22/2002 2:36:31 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: general_re; Tauzero
To: Tauzero
"... Both the Commerce Clause and your contract with the airlines provide adequate grounds for consensual searches before boarding a commercial flight.
# 635 by general_re
**********************

A forced agreement has no validity.

The Commerce Clause does not give Federal agents the power to conduct random searches of people who are not under suspicion of wrongdoing.

665 posted on 12/22/2002 2:48:10 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]

To: general_re
"But, if you persuade enough people of the rightness of your position, then it will be so."

Indeed.

"The best way to do that might be to discuss how the law should be, rather than trying to persuade people that your interpretion represents the law as it is..."

You can hardly hope to overthrow the current order by conceding its legitimacy.
666 posted on 12/22/2002 2:54:37 AM PST by Tauzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: general_re
"... A man who's livelihood depends on air travel has no choice. He must fly, or give up his job. If I have a three day vacation in Hawaii, the ONLY way I can go is if I fly to Hawaii. Any other method is impossible. Force is force, whether a "little" force, or a big one."
To: exodus
The fact that you don't care for the choices offered to you does not obligate society to expand the menu to cater to your personal tastes.
# 640 by general_re
**********************

It's not a restaurant, general_re.

It's unlawful force, conducted by Federal agents against Amnerican citizens.

It's against the law, general_re.

It's against the law, general_re.

667 posted on 12/22/2002 2:55:03 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: TaZ; general_re
To: exodus
Don't worry about HappyGal and her bawdry friends (especially the one who represents the unwashed masses), they were just called in as a last-ditch rescue attempt after she got submerged in her own diatribe. Use an American historical perspective and they fold like cheap suits.
# 641 by TaZ To: exodus
The fact that you don't care for the choices offered to you does not obligate society to expand the menu to cater to your personal tastes.
# 640 by general_re
**********************

I've noticed, TaZ.

The only survivor is general_re, and he only survives by pretending that he doesn't understand what I've said.

668 posted on 12/22/2002 2:58:18 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies]

To: general_re
You say that the Constitution allows random searches by government agents in private commercial airports? You don't know what you're talking about. "This society" didn't require searches in airports conducted by government agents. That illegal requirement was forced on us by our socialist government.
To: exodus
So long as those searches are consensual, yes. You have the perfect right to refuse to be searched at any time during the boarding process. Illegal based on what? Your say-so? Point me to the language of the Constitution that makes consensual searches illegal...
# 645 by general_re
**********************

The random searches by Federal agents are illegal, general_re. Why? Because the 4th Amendment said so.

FORCED AGREEMENTS HAVE NO VALIDITY.

Why? Besides common sense, the Supreme Court said so.

669 posted on 12/22/2002 3:04:36 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Congressmen know this is going on. They have the power to put an end to it. And they don't.

Well, the congress that rubber-stamped the federalization of this is not in session right now. Perhaps a barrage of letters from irate citizens is in order. I don't know if it will do any good or not though.

670 posted on 12/22/2002 3:11:04 AM PST by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: general_re
You have no idea what a right is, general_re . Anything that can be regulated is not a right.
To: exodus
So my right to free speech, for example, is absolute? I am free to say anything I want, whenever and wherever I want?
# 647 by general_re
**********************

You are free to say anything you want, as long as you don't defame someone.

Since you have such a problem with the definition, a right does not give you license to intentionally harm another.

As I said, you have no idea what a right is.

671 posted on 12/22/2002 3:12:08 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: BigBobber
So I asked a simple question that no one is willing to answer. How do you tell if a "pregnant" women is really pregnant and not a Muslim terrorist? This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. How are you going to do it?

Well, for starters, you can look and see if she's of middle-eastern descent.

672 posted on 12/22/2002 3:24:18 AM PST by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: general_re; Tauzero
To: Tauzero; general_re
Our Federal government has been abusing the Commerce Clause for decades. They even executed Timothy McVeigh under the Commerce Clause. The government contended that blowing up a building interferes with interstate commerce. 661 posted on 12/22/2002 4:16 AM CST by exodus
To: exodus
You guys are killing me here - I need to sleep ;) Hardly. 18 USC 51, §1114 does not rely on the Commerce Clause.
# 663 by general_re
**********************

Thanks, general_re. I believe that you're right on this. I had read differently, that McVeigh was tried under provisions of the Commerce Clause.

I'll look into it later. I'm too tired to think right now.

673 posted on 12/22/2002 3:24:36 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]

To: general_re
A written contract to submit to a search or be denied a thing of value is force.
To: exodus
You are under no obligation to agree to that contract by buying a ticket, and hence it cannot be forced upon you. Freedom of contract is typically one of those sorts of things that libertarians point to when pining for the good old days, e.g. Lochner - surely you don't mean to suggest that people shouldn't be allowed to enter into contracts when buying an airline ticket?
# 652 by general_re
**********************

A contract forced on a man by denying him access to a necessary thing if he refuses to sign is void under the law.

Even if the contract wasn't void, the Federal government can't have it's agents search people without reason. That's illegal.

674 posted on 12/22/2002 3:34:07 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: general_re
A search before an intrastate flight is a Federal regulation, not allowed in the Constitution, and thus illegal under the law.
To: exodus
Would it make you feel better if the search were required and conducted by the local police?
# 652 by general_re
**********************

Of course not, general_re .

Local police aren't allowed to perform searches without reason, either.

675 posted on 12/22/2002 3:37:42 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Please notice that the law says that the Federal government can not do this, but the Federal government does it anyway.
To: exodus
A consensual search is hardly "unreasonable" under the 4'th Amendment. You are free to refuse to be searched at any time during the boarding process.
# 652 by general_re
**********************

You are free to quit your job if you don't want to be searched without reason.

You are free to give up your Hawaiian vacation if you don't want to be searched without reason.

You are free to lose your girlfriend because you didn't show up when she called for help, if you don't want to be searched without reason.

You are free to let your parent die without you at their side, if you don't want to be searched without reason.

Your definition of "free" needs a little work, general_re.

676 posted on 12/22/2002 3:43:43 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: general_re; TaZ
You have no comprehension of the scope, nature or context of the Constitution of the United States of America based upon such a destitute interpretation of the Ninth Amendment.
To: TaZ
Enlighten me. How do we know what is and isn't a right under the Ninth Amendment?
# 654 by general_re
**********************

The "war" on drugs is illegal under the 9th Amendment, general_re.

The Federal government does not have the authority to prohibit the use of drugs by private citizens.

677 posted on 12/22/2002 3:48:57 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: general_re
The searches violate the Constitution. The searches are illegal. The searches violate our rights.
To: exodus
Unfortunately, I do not think those first two statements are supportable under the law as it is, and the last is a bare assertion. If, as I said above, you would like to discuss how the law should be, I am willing to discuss that as well....
# 657 by general_re
**********************

The law "as it is" is based upon the Constitution. Any law that does not conform with the Constitution is illegal. The searches violate the 4th Amendment.

The searches violate the Constitution. I say so because the Federal government is NOT allowed to conduct searches without cause. "It's your turn" is not a reason to search someone.

The searches violate our rights. The 4th Amendment recognizes our right of privacy. If we are searched without cause, our right has been violated.

678 posted on 12/22/2002 3:57:02 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: general_re; Tauzero
"... I'm fully aware that there have been words written down by judges that support your view. But judges are neither the sole nor final arbiters of the law or the constitution, so I cannot agree that that is what the law is. It is merely a long-standing usurpation.
To: Tauzero
"... No, I agree - the people are the final arbiters of the law and the Constitution. However, that hardly gives you much cover, since the people seem quite content with the general trend of constitutional interpretations produced by the courts..."
# 662 by general_re
**********************

The apathy of the people is not license to violate the Constitution. The Commerce Clause does not give Federal agents the power to conduct searches without reason.

The Commerce Clause does not give the Federal government the power to force airlines to put into each ticket an agreement to be searched at random.

A contract between an airline and a customer does not give Federal agents leave to ignore the Constitution, and conduct illegal searches without reason.

Even if the Supreme Court says it's okay, random searches of citizens is STILL illegal.

679 posted on 12/22/2002 4:07:37 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: exodus
Why do they need a search warrant to search someone's home. Just shut the electricity and water off and let them be free to have a choice. They can choose to be searched or they can choose to have electricity and water. You don't have a right to electricity, and you can always fetch your water in a bucket.
680 posted on 12/22/2002 4:17:32 AM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700 ... 1,141-1,147 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson