It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress Quietly Passed A Bill Allowing Warrantless Searches of Homes - Only 1% Opposed It

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Congress is on break. When did this occur?




posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: tigertatzen

What part of "any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System" is difficult to understand? Can you point to a private property exception?

Moreover, U.S. Representative Justin Amash seems pretty clear what it means:


Link.


Only 5 of these congress members are worth a #. Sad state we're in. Probably a trial run, for continuing throughout.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Not. Good.

I wonder if it will stand?



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Latest Action: 08/22/2017 Signed by President.

It was passed sometime before summer break.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

No they didn't it was saying land that was owned or occupied by the federal government doesn't allow them to go into anyone's homes without a warrant.

Jaden



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

It says: "including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government..."

Preceding that, it says: "...upon any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System..."

What would be the point of "including" something if you hadn't already identified something else to include it with???

Please tell me we speak the same language.



Well, it does say "upon reasonable notice", and with some definite need. The real question is, what does that allow legally? What is a "need", in this case? Are we talking a train derailed, or what? The language is somewhat vague, which is never a good thing.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Wrong. Read the actual text again.

I can't figure out why some of you are misreading this legislation. Baffled.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You do realize that notice is to the chief WMATA executive, in addition to the executive's agreement that a need exists?

That's not a judge, who normally would issue warrants.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You do realize that notice is to the chief WMATA executive, in addition to the executive's agreement that a need exists?

That's not a judge, who normally would issue warrants.



That's the concern. The question is, how can they claim this overrides the Constitution, if they try and enter a home?



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

It only says without limitation regarding lands owned or occupied by the federal government. That means there is limitation for lands not owned or occupied by the federal government.

Jaden
edit on 26-8-2017 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

It's you who are Miss reading it not us

Jaden



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

You can't be for real.

Guess Rep. Amash is wrong too. Lol

I can't help you if the plain meaning of words aren't....well, plain.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

The meaning of words are plain and there is nothing in that text saying they can perform warrantless searches of homes.

Sorry if you're too retarded or biased to understand that.

Jaden

Ok the retarded comment was a little over the top. You're just reading into the words more than you should. This text does not give blanket authority to search or enter property adjacent to the metro.

It only specifically states that they have blanket authority on property owned or occupied by federal government.
edit on 26-8-2017 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read my response there and explain to me your reasoning against it.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
All I have to say is "Zero Hedge".



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I guess this isn't convincing enough? twitter.com...



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   
What confuses me the most is that there isn't any problem getting a search warrant to begin with. Any judge will sign a warrant for pretty much no reason at all (just cuz) and they even have some of them sitting there on call just to do that at any hour of the day/night in many populated areas.

Search warrants really didn't mean what they used to mean.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: FyreByrd

I guess this isn't convincing enough? twitter.com...


Nope a 'tweet' from a congressman doesn't count as proof as well.

Yes, I did look it up:

www.congress.gov...

but not being a legislative analyst, I can't parse out all of the consequences of this and neither can most congress people - they need staff - qualified staff to do that stuff. I'll wait for wiser heads then mine or Zero Hedge's to make a disaster out of this Joint Resolution.

edit on 26-8-2017 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

In fact here is a link to the Text of the passed version;

Please show me the section that "makes warrantless" home searches possible.

Seriously, I have trouble reading this crap -

www.congress.gov...



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: tigertatzen

What part of "any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System" is difficult to understand? Can you point to a private property exception?

Moreover, U.S. Representative Justin Amash seems pretty clear what it means:


Link.


Sorry, but I'm not seeing it. I think it's fear mongering and you're spreading it around. Nothing you posted mentioned anything about people searching private residences without a warrant, which is your hyperbolic claim...or rather someone else's, which you've adopted as your own.

I didn't ask you for Justin Amash's opinion. I asked you to point out where in your source that it states these people are allowed to go into private homes and "search" without a warrant. Well, it doesn't. You're overreacting to someone else's clear lack of reading comprehension. Period.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join