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

Wow.

Read the damned legislation people. It doesn't require any special skill beyond reading the plain English language.

"In performing its duties, the Commission, through its Board or designated employees or agents, may...Enter upon the WMATA Rail System and, upon reasonable notice and a finding by the chief executive officer that a need exists, upon any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System, including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government, for the purpose of making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing as the Commission may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this MSC Compact..."

Those purposes are also enumerated in the law, but essentially anything they claim in needed to further the system's safety.

So In other words, if someone decides that shed in your backyard looks fishy-- or YOU for that matter-- they can come to your home without a judicial warrant and search to satisfy their concern you do not pose a risk to the rail system.

Clear enough?

Any can mean totality or any of an enumerated case.

Why specify one particular case if it's already included in a blanket statement?

You would think federal property would be automatically included. Why call out the obvious?

Unless "any, including," means "Any of the following"

a reply to: ItsNotIronic

The federal property issue is explicitly included to avoid any jurisdictional claim that a federal property can't also be searched under WMATA's authority- a tri-STATE entity.

a reply to: FyreByrd

No it doesn't. Some Congressmen think that Guam will capsize. I doubt they can interpret legislation appropriately and or tweet about it honestly just because they're congressmen.

Jaden

a reply to: loam

No not clear enough because that's not what it says. Your interpretation here sounds a lot like those f****** idiotic interpretations of the laws of natural born citizen thinking that it means someone born in the United States when no one born in the United States automatically became a citizen at the time it was written. it makes no sense.

There would be no reason to delineate out that Federal lands can be searched without limitation if there wasn't still limitation on non-federal lands or non-federally occupied property.

Jaden

P.s. 5 million people can interpret something incorrectly and guess what, they're still interpreting it incorrectly.

a reply to: loam

This law does not allow what people are claiming.

Whats so special about this rail thingie to even bring it up?

Such illegitimate legislation is the logical result of other such legislation like the USA Patriot Act and the various NDAA amendments which nullified Habeas Corpus.

We've been living in a police state for quite a few years now.

it says adjacent to the wmata rail system in washington d.c not the whole of the US, washington d.c is federal property and not a state so it's not protected by the constitution in the first place.

originally posted by: loam
Wow.

Read the damned legislation people. It doesn't require any special skill beyond reading the plain English language.

"In performing its duties, the Commission, through its Board or designated employees or agents, may...Enter upon the WMATA Rail System and, upon reasonable notice and a finding by the chief executive officer that a need exists, upon any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System, including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government, for the purpose of making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing as the Commission may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this MSC Compact..."

Those purposes are also enumerated in the law, but essentially anything they claim in needed to further the system's safety.

So In other words, if someone decides that shed in your backyard looks fishy-- or YOU for that matter-- they can come to your home without a judicial warrant and search to satisfy their concern you do not pose a risk to the rail system.

Clear enough?

No it is not - don't you get it - there is no link to check your 'analysis' - (OWO)

You have never given a direct link to the House Joint Resolution, nor do you actually quote the relevant passage.

I believe this is the relevant section of the House Joint Resolution.

` `(b) Enter upon the WMATA Rail System and,

upon reasonable notice and a finding by the chief executive officer that a need exists,

upon any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System,

including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the
federal government, for the purpose of making inspections,
investigations, examinations, and testing as the Commission may deem
necessary to carry out the purposes of this MSC Compact, and such entry
shall not be deemed a trespass.

The Commission shall make reasonable reimbursement for any actual damage resulting to any such adjacent
lands, waters, and premises as a result of such activities;

www.congress.gov...


This puts some context to the matter:

1) Advance notice to property owners is required - that states the need for the inspection.
2) only applies to lands adjacent to the Transportation Agency's own properties.
3) remuneration for any potential damages is required.

Hardly "Warrantless Searches of Homes"

Also your chosen headline - is very inflammatory and factually inaccurate as this only pertains to properties adjacent to the WMATA area of operation whereas you imply 'all' homes.

Saying that "Congress Quietly Passed A Bill Allowing Warrantless Searches of Homes - Only 1% Opposed It" is disingenuous to a very high degree.

Basing your idea completely on Zero Hedge and a Tweet from Rep Amash is an informal logic fallacy called "Appeal to Authority" (sorry I don't yet a cute graphic for this one) and without verifiable substantiation is not something to be trusted.

And this was an easy one, if you had spent the time and thought, you could have made the argument.

a reply to: FyreByrd

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wow.

Has the WMATA Rail System been a target of some kind of threat or something, I wonder. Why now?

The 5 opposing this were all Republicans saying it is a clear violation of the Constitution.

originally posted by: loam
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.

How many fingers, Mr. Smith?

Where is McCain preaching about the Constitution on this one?

a reply to: FyreByrd

A knock on the door is probably enough before the " inspectors" come in I'm sure. Just like eminent domain gives reasonable rates to people who's homes have been siezed, I mean confidcated we um whatever you call it. No law had ever been used to get a foot in the door I'm sure.

a reply to: loam

The future is clear

And so is the present

a reply to: loam

FFS...

Railroads are generally responsible for not only the tracks but for property 50 feet to each side of the track. The bill allows for inspections etc of their tracks, even if it means they have to come onto private property to do it.

This bill does NOT allow for workers / police to randomly enters people houses for the purpose of a search. Railroad police have, in general, federal commissions due to the fact railroads cross state lines. Those commissions dont allow for any more authority than law enforcement in other federal agencies or local / county / state police.

Maintaining railroads is important and because of that workers will have to inspect the designated routes to ensure they meet federal / state law requirements. This will mean workers will have to enter private property in order to access rail routes. Notices are issued to people affected should something happen that requires a response or for preventative maintenance.

The same is applicable to public utilities, like electric or water. They are allowed to enter onto private property to inspect pipes / wires and if necessary to dig on that property to fix / replace items under their control.

The rep who tweeted this out needs to be hit in the head with a tack hammer after he fixes his rectal-cranial inversion. This bill does not allow for warrant less searches by law enforcement.

Further, and pay attention.

The 4th amendment does not apply to the individual but to the government. It requires the government (and its agents acting under color of law) to submit a probable cause affidavit to a judge in order to obtain a warrant. Since the bill in question cant make changes to the Constitution or SCOTUS rulings, that should have been your first clue.

Secondly if an incident does occur that requires a law enforcement response the focus of the investigation is not on the property owners. If for some strange reason they become a focus then all standard rules and laws apply, like requiring a warrant to access a residence / out property / etc. If damage is caused ti private property by the rail line then the police get called anyways to investigate.

Also an exception under the 4th is whats called the Open Fields Doctrine. Outside the immediate livable areas of your residence / curtilage (area immediately surrounding your residence) restrictions under the 4th lessen somewhat.
Why is that important? Because it ONLY applies to Law Enforcement.

This bill does NOT strip the 4th amendment.
This bill does NOT allow for warrant less searches by people acting under color of law.

People pushing the false narrative it does - They need to educate themselves before duping others into a false frenzy based on ignorance.

This bill does NOT allow for warrant less searches by law enforcement. Stop blowing this out of proportion and think for a change instead of parroting the ignorance of others.

Knowledge and common sense are your best friends. Please reintroduce yourself to them.

originally posted by: ThomasFar
a reply to: loam

The future is clear

And so is the present

the future is now.... is now... is now... is now... is now....

a reply to: Xcathdra

You're not very good at statutory construction, are you?

All of those words in your response and none of them address the language of the passed law in question... Lol

You act like it's impossible to ever have legislation that violates constitutional law. Moreover, your analysis is just plain weak. Take for example your comments about public utilities.... The reason they can come on your land is because they have pre-existing easement rights to the real property. That's a property law concept that I'm reasonably sure you are aware of...or at least you should be, given as I recall your self-proclaimed legal background. No easement...no legal access.

Your assertion that the 4th amendment does not apply to the individual but the government is just plain bizarre, considering that amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and begins with the explicit language of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things ..."

So in other words, the 4th limits government power by expressly granting to the individual the enumerated right.

Your comments about when an 'incident' occurs is equally bizarre. The legislation doesn't require only an incident of any kind for WMATA employees or their agents to enter your property. They can do so also to inspect, examine or test if the executive unilaterally determines the need pursuant to the safety purpose or other purposes described in the law.

Your mention of the open fields doctrine is equally puzzling, as it has nothing to do with WMATA or this legislation.

I doubt you'll retreat from your position, so we can agree to just disagree.

And while you're dispensing advise about knowledge and common sense, you'd benefit greatly by following your own words.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: loam

No they didnt. A warrant is still required unless it meets a 4th amendment exception. Secondly what they are referring to is law enforcement working a lawful call that requires them to come onto private property where the property / property owner in question are not the subject of law enforcement action.

IE a train derails and police come onto private property to investigate the derailment.

Or a terrorist jihadi is caught with a bomb on a train, escapes, and law enforcement knows he couldn't have escaped the tight perimeter and must be in one of two city blocks.