MTA Violating 4th Amendment Rights

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Steadfast Fred, Jan 20, 2011.

  1. Steadfast Fred

    Steadfast Fred
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,983
    Likes Received:
    0
    MTA violating 4th Amendment Rights

    So, if the police in the Subways in NY are violating rights by searching without warrants, are not the TSA also violating rights at airports?

    Why? or Why not?
     
  2. JohnDeereFan

    JohnDeereFan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    11
    Yes, they absolutely are violating the 4th Amendment.

    The argument with the TSA is usually that, by purchasing his ticket, the passenger makes a contract allowing the TSA to search him. The problem is that the passenger purchases the ticket with the airline, NOT the TSA.
     
  3. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is only the begging. The people have given away their freedoms and this all will grow into more freedoms being taken away.
     
  4. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    No one has a constitutional right to ride the subway. Don't want to be searched, take a cab or a bus.
     
  5. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,134
    Likes Received:
    221
    I suppose if I suspected someone had a weapon, I might question them and ask them to show it to me and possible lay it on the front floorboard...
    would that be searching without warrants

    Salty
    the taxi driver
     
  6. JohnDeereFan

    JohnDeereFan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    11
    ...nor does the government have a Constitutionally granted right to search someone at random.
     
  7. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is the mind set of communism, not one of a free people with equal rights.
     
  8. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,949
    Likes Received:
    299
    It's an imaginary problem, but you have to cling to something.. Would you feel better if you were pat searched by an airline employee? Would that suit your sensibilities?

    The obvious answer is no. But It would certainly take away the false complaint you're using as a crutch.
     
  9. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,198
    Likes Received:
    376
    You know what? I'm more than willing to give up that right. We've seen the news. I've been in the Manhattan subways. One small bomb is devastating. I'll happily let them search my bag to help make sure I can take my children in there safely.
     
  10. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,134
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ann what would be your answer to Ben Franklins quote?
     
  11. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would say that being able to board an airplane without showing that I don't have a bomb is not an "essential liberty".

    Is walking into a court house without going through the metal detector also an essential liberty?
     
  12. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0




    [SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]Here is the problem. We who cling to our freedoms and rights have no problem with someone else giving up their freedoms and rights, but not them giving up ours. Those who seek a certain level of claimed safety are not the spokesman for all the people. Socialism believes that the minority has the right to set the agenda for others. Freedom loving people seeks to have everyone's rights protected even when there are certain risks. That is why Americans are willing to die, and many have, for freedom.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

    [SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]Why not do it this way. If we are a freedom loving people who desires everyone to have equal rights and freedoms, you who are willing to give up your freedoms and accept the body searches to feel safe lets make two lines. One for those who are willing to forgo their rights and one for those who stand for personal freedoms and rights. That way some can go through x-ray machines and body searches and the others can just board as free people.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
    [SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]Or those who fear to fly or board subways can just stay off those carriers. Now that would be fair! That way they are proving that they are still freedom loving people and not socialists by not expecting others to give up their rights and not pushing their desires on those who love freedom and personal rights. I really think this is the answer rather then expecting someone else to suffer lose because of another's fear.[/SIZE][/SIZE]

    [SIZE=+0]The socialist mindset of giving up everyone's rights and freedoms for safety is the same mind set of an abortionist. The abortionist wants their rights to not be pregnant so they violate the right of the unborn and murder them. The socialist wants their rights and is willing to give up everyone else's rights to freedom and personal rights so they murder our liberties. Bad policy! It is the same mindset that made Nazi Germany what it was.[/SIZE]
    [/SIZE]
    [/SIZE][/SIZE]
     
    #12 freeatlast, Jan 22, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 22, 2011
  13. JohnDeereFan

    JohnDeereFan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    11
    Actually, it's a very real problem. Newspapers have reported on it, lawsuits have been filed over it, people have even been arrested over it.

    How is it a false complaint when it's happening every day?
     
  14. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Freeatlast, do you object to police random check points where the police stop every single car to check cars for drunk drivers?
     
  15. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,134
    Likes Received:
    221
    Here is the problem. (put your extra large thinking cap on - this is a really tough question) If a person had a bomb - which line do you think they would get in?
    As a passenger, don't you think I have a right to expect a safe flight?
    Now, is it wrong for the govt to come in and inspect the maintenance of airplanes. Why should the FCC require a pilot to have a flying license? Why should an airline give up its freedoms to accept plane inspections and pilot licensing?

    If you still insist on no check, then an airline should have a separate plane for those "freedom loving Americans", but would you be willing to pay an extra large surcharge for you plane ticket? You see the insurance for that non-security checked plane would be ultra sky-high (no pun intended) - so a simple yes or now should suffice? Do you know the cost of an aircraft?

    With that said - I do agree that some of these personal checks have went a bit too far.
    One suggestion - all politicians from the President on down must undergo the same pre-flight checks (I know the POTUS has his own plane) that way they will know exactly what the general population is going thur....


    and what does that have to do with the safety of the aircraft?

    Salty

    PS - FreeAtLast - when I hit spell check - your name came up to be corrected as "Federalist" :thumbsup:
     
    #15 Salty, Jan 22, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 22, 2011
  16. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0

    it is you who needs a thinking cap. The problem is not with safety, it is with the socialist movement destroying our rights and freedoms by the way safety is being done. Others should not have to lose their rights because someone else is scared. How about the socialists staying home and they lose their rights. By the way i am not sure where you have been but a bomb can be smuggled into checked baggage and it is not frisked.

    Your question;
    and what does that have to do with the safety of the aircraft?

    Answer; Nothing. This is about freedoms and impeaching the rights of others promote the desires of some. I would be more then glad to offer some suggestions on airplane safety without destroying personal freedoms and rights, but the socialists are bent on their agenda and not rights and freedoms.

    Your statement;
    FreeAtLast - when I hit spell check - your name came up to be corrected as "Federalist"

    I could not tell you one way or the other on the matter. I do not know what a Federalist is.

     
    #16 freeatlast, Jan 22, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 22, 2011
  17. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,134
    Likes Received:
    221
    Why not just answer my original question - (remember extra cost is for high insurance rates)

    One other minor detail - they would have to find a pilot stupid eight to fly such a plane. and if they did, he would probably want extra pay (add more to your plane ticket)

    You have my blessing to board such a non-secured plane. But for me - I want at least some reasonable checks. and Yes, I understand that anything can be smuggled in, but with a non secured plane - why take the chance in the secured line?

    So would you be willing to fly on and to pay an extra large cost for a plane ticket for an airline without security checks yes or NO
    (remember extra cost is for high insurance rates)

    Q #1 ) Yes or No .........Q #2 Yes or No)

    Salty

    PS "Federalist" - see I told you to put your thinking cap on. I found some very good links about the Federalists.
     
    #17 Salty, Jan 22, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 22, 2011
  18. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,198
    Likes Received:
    376
    I would be willing to pay a premium to fly on a plane where everyone was screened.

    Regarding Franklin's quote, I will disagree with him. I'm just fond of my life a bit and would love to be around for my grandchildren rather than be another statistic for the fight on terrorism.
     
  19. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    A nudist flight would solve the problem. Blankets could be passed out after boarding.

    The REAL problem is that Bin Laden won WW3 because humans are terrible at risk analysis. One is 20 times more likely to be killed by lightning than a terrorist.
     
  20. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never said no security checks. I made the point that the current methods do away with certain rights and freedoms and yes i would pay more to fly to keep those freedoms and rights. Again those who hold the sociologist view that their way must be for everyone even if it means losing rights and freedoms is not the American way.
     

Share This Page

Loading...