• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stimulus to bring body scanners to airports

Yes a car is your own property. However you cannot drive it on ANY road without a license. Hence the whole "driving is a priviledge" thing. ;)

And GPS cannot tell weather you cross the solid yellow line. There goes your arguement.

Nope. It can record accelerations, speed, and link that with traffic and road information. Know if you're speeding, know if you're driving erratically. The yellow line...that can be accomplished rather easily.

Breathalyzer? Sure. Blackbox, no real need for it. But I wouldn't be against it.

Scary

Again, a house is a private place, an airport is public. The difference is distinct. My arguement applies to public places and not the private.

A car is private property. And why is it that there is a limit there? There's no way to know that you aren't breaking a law. You used that line as giving reasonable doubt. The 4th deals with unreasonable search and seizure, but if there is "reason" as stated by you that we don't know if someone is doing something wrong, then it becomes legitimate.
 
What I meant was other than what is in those amendments, the states handle voting qualifications. The way you interpret that sentence makes absolutely no sense.

Such a claim smacks of not being able to read and understand plain English.

Or maybe you should phrase your sentences better? You're the one that wrote it. There was only one way to interpret such phrasing.

Btw you might want to look up United States v. Aukai, 04-10226.

More than 700 million passengers board commercial air-craft in the United States each year.1 The Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) is given the task of ensuring their safety, the safety of airline and airport personnel and, as the events of September 11, 2001, demonstrate, the safety of the general public from risks arising from commercial airplane flights. To do so, the TSA conducts airport screening searches of all passengers entering the secured area of the airport. We have previously held such airport screening searches are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches. Today we clarify that the reasonableness of such searches does not depend, in whole or in part, upon the consent of the passenger being searched.

Link
 
Or maybe you should phrase your sentences better? You're the one that wrote it. There was only one way to interpret such phrasing.
Considering your difficulty understanding 21st century English, it's no wonder you can't understand the 18th century variety.
Btw you might want to look up United States v. Aukai, 04-10226.



Link
Fascinating precedence for the Ninth Circuit. You understand it is only binding on Ninth Circuit courts, right? Of course you don't ... :doh
 
Considering your difficulty understanding 21st century English, it's no wonder you can't understand the 18th century variety.

Knock of the attacks ok? Perhaps you could explain how the word "outside" could mean something other than what it does. If you don't want to admit that you made an error then fine, don't. But at least drop that line of argument.

Fascinating precedence for the Ninth Circuit. You understand it is only binding on Ninth Circuit courts, right? Of course you don't ... :doh

While no other courts need to follow what the 9th circuit court says they are generally obliged to follow it. If a lower court did not follow it then on an appeal it could very well be overturned. As I have heard before..."One of the most important factors in a judicial system is consistency, laws need to be applied in the same way everywhere they are applied."
 
fail



.....

How? They are called 'amendments' aren't they?

amendment - definition of amendment by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

1. The act of changing for the better; improvement: "Society may sometimes show signs of repentance and amendment" (George G. Coulton).

2. A correction or alteration, as in a manuscript.

---------------------------------------------------------------

If it was a document which was not meant to be changed why would we keep adding/removing amendments?
 
How? They are called 'amendments' aren't they?

amendment - definition of amendment by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

1. The act of changing for the better; improvement: "Society may sometimes show signs of repentance and amendment" (George G. Coulton).

2. A correction or alteration, as in a manuscript.

---------------------------------------------------------------

If it was a document which was not meant to be changed why would we keep adding/removing amendments?





that is different than what the other mal informed poster claimed..... "living document" infers that existing amendments can be interpretated to the whim of the current administration/generation..... your posts bolsters my point and hinders his. ;)
 
Knock of the attacks ok? Perhaps you could explain how the word "outside" could mean something other than what it does. If you don't want to admit that you made an error then fine, don't. But at least drop that line of argument.
"Knock of"?? O-kay ...

"Outside of," in that context, meant "other than." Pretty ****ing simple for most people. I could have worded it better, but if you grasped the context it wouldn't have mattered. Duh.
While no other courts need to follow what the 9th circuit court says they are generally obliged to follow it. If a lower court did not follow it then on an appeal it could very well be overturned. As I have heard before..."One of the most important factors in a judicial system is consistency, laws need to be applied in the same way everywhere they are applied."
It is bad precedence and, considering the track record of the Ninth Circuit, has a good chance of being overturned by the Supreme Court.
 
Back
Top Bottom