Judge Reaffirms Constitution Free Zones 100 Miles Inside U.S. Borders

By  | 

This nonsense makes my blood boil.

District Judge Edward Korman, a US federal judge, has reaffirmed an Obama administration policy granting officials the authority to search Americans’ laptops, citing a controversial premise that makes citizens within 100 miles of the border eligible for a police check.

[quote_box_center]

District Judge Edward Korman made his ruling in New York on Tuesday, more than three years after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit. The ACLU claimed that – since Americans put so much of their lives on their computers, cell phones, and other devices – border officials should have reasonable suspicion before sifting through someone’s personal files.

Attorneys argued that searches conducted without reasonable suspicion are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

Not so, according to Judge Korman. In his decision Tuesday he argued that the area 100 miles inland falls under a “border exemption.”

Laptops have only come into widespread use in the twenty-first century. Prior to that time, lawyers, photographers, and scholars managed to travel overseas and consult with clients, take photographs, and conduct scholarly research,” wrote Korman.

No one ever suggested the possibility of a border search had a chilling effect on his or her First Amendment rights. While it is true that laptops make overseas work more convenient, the precaution plaintiffs may choose to take to ‘mitigate’ the alleged harm associated with the remote possibility of a border search are simply among the many inconveniences associated with international travel.”

The federal government has long conducted searches on travelers entering and leaving the US, but Congress expanded that policy by creating the Department of Homeland Security and setting up at least 33 checkpoints inside the country where people are stopped and asked to prove their citizenship.

The trouble is, the ACLU noted, that almost two-thirds of the population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US border. New York, Washington, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, and dozens of other major metropolitan areas fall under the so-called “exemption” zone.

The civil-liberties advocacy group filed suit in 2010 on behalf of Pascal Abidor, a 29-year-old Islamic Studies student whose laptop computer was held for 11 days when he was traveling by Amtrak rail from Canada to his parents’ home in New York.

Abidor was sitting in the train’s cafe car when an officer forced him to take out his laptop then “ordered Mr. Abidor to enter his password,” the suit claimed. The computer contained images of Hamas and Hezbollah rallies and the agents, unmoved by Abidor’s assertion the images were related to his studies, handcuffed the young man and kept him detained for three hours, questioning him numerous times.

Department of Homeland Security data indicates that 6,500 people had their devices search between 2008 and 2010 alone.[/quote_box_center]

Here’s what the ACLU attorney, Catherine Crump, had to say about this controversial ruling

We’re disappointed in today’s decision, which allows the government to conduct intrusive searches of Americans’ laptops and other electronics at the border without any suspicion that those devices contain evidence of wrongdoing,” she said.

Suspicionless searches of devices containing vast amounts of personal information cannot meet the standard set by the Fourth Amendment… Unfortunately, these searches are part of a broader pattern of aggressive government surveillance that collects information on too many innocent people, under lax standards, and without adequate oversight.

The absolute malicious stripping away of our rights has got to stop, folks, we must stand-up and fight back against this at every turn! The future of or Republic is at stake and many want to bury their heads in the sand… Wake Up!!!

2014 is now upon us and we must battle these big government intrusions at the ballot box. Please stay tuned to The Minority Report as we prepare to support good conservative small government candidates and totally destroy those in the establishment who are in the way!

 

A former U.S.Marine, he is the Creator of The Minority Report Network. He is also the Founder and Managing Editor of the Network’s flagship site, www.theminorityreportblog.com, Former Director of New Media for Liberty.com, Former Director of New Media for Liberty First PAC, and the Former Chief Managing Editor of 73Wire.com. Steve is a well respected national conservative blogger who’s dedicated the past several years of his life advancing conservatism online. Recently Steve was instrumental in the development of Liberty.com, Liberty First PAC, The Patriot Caucus, the national campaign trail and grassroots news site73wire.com.

  • Scrappy

    This crap needs to stop. Its seems any Democrat thinks that they have the right to do as they please without regard to the law. Get a grip idiots. Elections are coming and believe this, I don’t forget things like this.

  • 600 Horses

    I live 2 miles from the Gulf, does that include me? So the closest I could go to escape this rule, would be to drive north 300 miles to Tifton GA. Seems like a inequitable division of Freedoms.

  • Outlawcajun

    More of the creeping crud called communism. obama is hot after that final straw that pushes this country into civil war.

    • Matt Roach

      It’s not communism, it’s statism in general. Anyone who thinks that a piece of paper

      is going to protect them from kings, dictators, emperors, and their legions of armed and willing killers in camouflage costumes is mentally retarded. If you want freedom, A: stop trying to use the force of government to foist your version of “best dictator” upon others, and B: refuse to recognize their agents or any of their activities as being legitimate. Things like “countries” and “borders” and “we/our” is cult-think bullshit. It’s no different than some wacky religion. Some priest draws lines on a map and suddenly we’re all on a “team” that is somehow better than the people on the other side of the imaginary line. It’s ridiculous.

      Stop blaming “Obama”, because the guy’s just another fucking puppet in a long line of puppets. Stop worshiping at the altar of the state, and for god’s sake stop paying the assholes your hard-earned money. If you’re all for “The Home of the Free, Land of the Brave”, THEN BE FREE AND BRAVE AND CUT THEM OFF. There’s nothing brave or “patriotic” about letting politicians and other cult clergy rape your ass and then use the money to pay pigs and soldiers to hold you (and other people across the world) hostage. Use your head. Starve the beast.

      • kgolfinghawaii

        You first then. When they come for you will you be organized with all your friends and buddies to put up the resistance you so arrogantly boast about? And Obama may be a puppet, but if you think there is no difference between who is controlling the puppets then you are brain dead. Yes, statism is the problem, but he, Obama, was raised by communists so for anyone to think he doesn’t believe in that is again brain dead. And if one is so blind to not believe in what the Founders penned then again brain dead. How the heck do you think our country, with it’s false borders and all, became what it did? Not by being open bordered for sure. And I do not want the government involved in any aspect of my life other than keeping us from being attacked externally.

        • greenthumb07

          If you look at the history of US immigration policy, you’d quickly see that our nation was built on immigration. The US has no immigration regulation until 1875. None. From then until the 1920s, the only restrictions were on criminals and indentured servants. Over 100 years of nearly unfettered immigration. What makes you think open borders hurt this country? Actual history demonstrates the opposite.

          • Rob Adcox

            Ever heard of illegals crossing our southern border by the millions? Didn’t think so.

            • greenthumb07

              Ever heard of the 12 million plus immigrants crossing out eastern border? 1892-1954, Ellis Island. Opening our borders to otherwise law abiding citizens of other countries doesn’t necessarily weaken our country.

              • Joe Zamora

                What makes you assume they’re law abiding? The simple fact that they crossed into the U.S. illegally refutes that. Wake up and get all the facts.

                • greenthumb07

                  You want the facts? The average “law abiding” American breaks 3 federal criminal laws a day. Maybe that claim is a stretch for some. How many violate traffic laws on a daily, sometimes hourly basis? I said otherwise law abiding. Wake up and learn to read.

                  http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

          • Benjamin Walburn

            Probably the taxpayer funded entitlements that didn’t exist before.

            • greenthumb07

              Wouldn’t adding taxpayers to the rolls increase tax revenue? I’m not an economist, but I can see that it isn’t as simple as saying that all immigrants would be leaches, as many seem to say when discussing the immigration issue.

              • LLobaAzul

                Milton Friedman said you can have a welfare state OR open immigration – but not both.

                • greenthumb07

                  I don’t support the idea of a welfare state.

        • Rob Adcox

          False borders? Really?

      • trigon400

        Jews & communism are synonymous.
        When you see how many Jews are collectively working towards the same goals of disarming the Goyim & enacting creepy NDAA & Patriot Act types of laws, you soon realize that it’s the Jews, not “communists”.

        • Rob Adcox

          Good luck a-settin” in thet thar trailer park jus’ a-waitin’ ta git them ther jews, Vern. Y’all goin’ to the square dance on Saturday night? Don’t fergit ta take yore weekly bath.

          • Benjamin Walburn

            Please stop, your native dialect is grating on my nerves.

            • Rob Adcox

              Upon further reflection, I’ll never post another comment like that again.

              • What_IQ

                Buahaaaaawaaaaaaaa

          • Lucifer Light

            Jews are the problem, dirtbag.

        • Lucifer Light

          jews = communism.

      • Rob Adcox

        A nation is defined mainly by its borders. Did you miss that point? Otherwise, um, why are there borders? I agree with the rest of your post, but come on. Borders are essential if we’re talking about sustaining a free nation. Maybe I missed a part of your point and your stance regarding national sovereignty.

        • Matt Roach

          “A free nation”? What is a “free nation”? Isn’t “being governed” the opposite of “free”? Why do I have to have a loss of freedom because some politician wants to insist that “I belong” to him, because my mom’s vagina happened to be on a certain land mass at the time of my birth? I’d rather not “belong” to a politician. In my eyes, every man is his own king, his home/property is his kingdom, and anyone attempting to hold him against his will (considering that the man is a peaceable individual) is a violent aggressor, and an illegitimate dictator. Sovereignty belongs not to governments, but to individuals. This was even upheld in the earliest, borderline-anarchistic days of the US federal government with Chisholm v. Georgia:

          “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the
          people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but
          they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but
          themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens,
          and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA
          (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472

          It seems at this late stage we could take it one step further than the founders had it, and delete the federal government (and all other world governments) altogether. After all, when was the last time you heard of an anarchist committing a genocide, or even initiating a war? All government is a controlling, violent monster, and I want nothing to do with any of it, and I sure as hell don’t support such a massive evil in any way, shape, or form, nor do I recommend anyone else does. Even now the only time the average citizen encounters government, it’s either because they work for it (gee, where did the private sector go?), or they’re getting assfucked by it (traffic tickets, taxes, going to prison for victimless crimes, you name it).

          In other words, we all basically live in a state of peaceful anarchy 99% of the time anyway…and then government sticks it’s head in “because we need it” or “to fix something”. I’m certain there’s nothing that needs to be “fixed” so badly that we can’t figure it out without government “helping”, and blowing 30 times the money required to do the job in the process, and then fucking it up anyway.

      • Lucifer Light

        It IS communism, this vague “statism” bullshit is baloney. Its judeo-communism plain and clear. Jews already have a us hostage.

    • warpmine

      Suits me just fine. Rather die a free man than than live as a slave.

      • What_IQ

        Let me expand upon that:
        Neither Master Nor Slave
        MOLAN LABE
        and “Oderint dum Metuant” ( So they hate, as long as they fear )
        a Gov’t should fear its people, not the other way around.

    • Rodney Vero

      Wasn’t the Patriot Act ‘the push’ for Homeland Security? Patriot Act was passed under Obama? Or Bush? Agree Obama did nothing to get rid of the Patriot Act when he had the chance – but to blame this on one administration is silly at best. The problem isn’t one of Dems vs Repubs – this is THEM versus the rest of US!! The question is: what are WE going to do about it? Sit here and complain on this thread until HoneyBooBoo comes on, or go out in the streets and scream our heads off like they do elsewhere?

  • 1hunglo1

    Yes. Impeach obama and all the democrats and rino republicans. Make the impeachments retroactive to January 2009.

  • Don

    Who’s going to enforce this. The obama troops that live in those areas with their families and friends or will obama ask his troops from other areas to leave their families and friends to go to these areas and abuse their buds family and friends.

  • SnoMad

    Looks like District Judge Edward Korman should be swinging from the gallows. A bullet in his head would be MUCH cheaper and quicker though. I’ll donate both the rope and a round.

  • kgolfinghawaii

    I am guessing we need to go search this “judges” laptop. He obviously can’t be trusted and well he is a security risk if you believe the Constitution of the United States of America. Freaking communist piece of trash.

    • hxc323

      Welcome to the USSR, 21st-century style. Now with flying killer robots and total digital surveillance.

  • smarterthanthat

    if they think that’ll work in NH or Maine…they don’t know New Englanders at all…

  • wvweightgs

    Violates the us constitution. There for is there a congressman (ha ha) that has the guts to file for removal of this judge???? for violation of his oath of office by this action? Bet not. Remember federal judges can be charged for crimes and removed for not following their oath of office. Lets start doing it.

  • Cecelia Henderson

    There should be some justification/cause for the forced entry into someone home and the search and seizure of anyone’s property – suspicion, proof, evidence, records……

    • 600 Horses

      There used to be, before the Government started trampling on them in the name of National Security.

  • michaelrivero

    Neither the President nor any judge has the lawful authority to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Attempting to do so renders the federal Government illegitimate as its authority over the people rests on that Constitution and the federal Government is lawful and legitimate only so long as it complies with the restrictions in that document.

    100 miles may not seem like much until you realize what percentage of the US population live near the coastlines.
    That declared Constitution-free zone encompasses many of our major cities (and even Washington DC). Here in Hawaii, where everyone is within 100 miles of the shore, it attempts to make the entire state a Constitution-free zone.

    100 miles today. Will it be 200 tomorrow? Then 300?

    • 600 Horses

      I’m in Florida, and every part of Florida is included. It is no coincidence that most of the people live near the water in this country, water is life. If Obama keeps installing Liberal Judges, things like this will become routine.

      • michaelrivero

        Only if we allow it.

    • trulyfreefromtyrany

      So if I live in one of these areas that means “I do not have to abide by the constitution and thus the law either? I can do as I please inside of this constitution free zone?!?

    • Chloe Rowles

      Poor Florida…..they don’t have any rights in any part of the State. This must have been overturned by now.

  • NonyaBiznizz

    Let them try pulling that. If they want to try it with me, they’ll be slammed with so many lawsuits, not to mention that as soon as they’d try I’d be ON the phone to my attorney. My first word would be NO. They have NO right to search anything of mine and I’d tell them to f##k off and get a f##king warrant.

  • Dominicon

    The judge who gave the ruling was a Reagan appointment too!

    Curse you Reagan and your commie liberal agenda and judges!

  • Richard Good

    Why is the ACLU concerned about this. As a very liberal organization, they should be pleased that the ultra liberal government did this.

  • http://www.facebook.com/carl.collicott Carl Collicott

    Border Searches of Electronic Devices

    http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/crcl-border-search-impact-assessment_01-29-13_1.pdf

    Background

    ICE and CBP
    exercise longstanding constitutional and statutory authority permitting suspicion
    less and warrantless searches of merchandise at the border and its functional
    equivalent. Two public Directives issued in 2009 (CBP Directive No. 3340-049
    “Border Search of Electronic Devices Containing Information” and ICE Directive
    No. 7-6.1 “Border Searches of Electronic Devices”) impose requirements
    governing use of this authority in searching, reviewing, retaining, and sharing
    information contained in electronic devices.

    ________________________________________________________________-

    THE ARTICLES
    TO BE SERCHED ARE ARTCLES OF ENTRY- CUSTOMS

    CBP
    Directive No. 3340-049

    CBP Authority to Search

    http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/admissibility/

    CUSTOMS (the other customs)

    -08/18/2010

    CBP officers’ border search authority is derived through 19 U.S.C. 1467 and 19
    C.F.R. 162.6, which states that all persons, baggage and merchandise arriving in the CBP territory of the UnitedStates from places outside thereof are liable to inspection.

    19 USC § 1467 – Special
    inspection, examination, and search

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1467?quicktabs_8=2#quicktabs-8

    19 USC 1431: Manifests Text contains those laws in effect on January 1, 2014

    From Title 19-CUSTOMS DUTIESCHAPTER
    4-TARIFF ACT OF 1930

    SUBTITLE III-ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS Part II-Report, Entry, and
    Unlading of Vessels and Vehicles

    http://143.231.180.67/view.xhtml;jsessionid=BAFA6E7BBB235A7DFB7FAD96CD746F26?path=&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title19-section1431&f=&fq=&num=0&hl=false&edition=prelim

    OPTIONS

    (d) Regulations

    (1) In general

    The Secretary shall by regulation-

    (A)
    specify the form for, and the information and data that must be contained in,
    the manifest required by subsection (a) of this section;

    (B)
    allow, at the option of the individual producing the manifest and subject to
    paragraph (2), letters and documents shipments to be accounted for by summary
    manifesting procedures;

    (C)
    prescribe the manner of production for, and the delivery for electronic
    transmittal of, the manifest required by subsection (a) of this section; and

    (D)
    prescribe the manner for supplementing manifests with bill of lading data under
    subsection (b) of this section.

    (2) Letters and documents shipments

    For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)-

    (A)
    the Customs Service may require with respect to letters and documents
    shipments-

    (i)
    that they be segregated by country of origin, and

    (ii)
    additional examination procedures that are not necessary for individually
    manifested shipments;

    (B)
    standard letter envelopes and standard document packs shall be segregated from
    larger document shipments for purposes of customs inspections; and

    (C)
    the term “letters and documents” means-

    (i)
    data described in General Headnote 4(c) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
    the United States,

    (ii)
    securities and similar evidences of value described in heading 4907 of such
    Schedule, but not monetary instruments defined pursuant to chapter 53 of title 31, and

    (iii) personal correspondence, whether on paper, cards,photographs, tapes, or other media.

    Transfer of Functions

    For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the United States Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury, including functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 203 (1), 551
    (d), 552 (d), and 557 of Title 6,
    Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan
    of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542
    of Title 6.

    6 USC § 542 – Reorganization plan

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/542?quicktabs_8=2#quicktabs-8

    Source

    (Pub. L. 107–296,
    title XV, § 1502,Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2308.)

    References in Text

    This chapter,
    referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 107–296,
    Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2135,
    known as the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which is classified principally to
    this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short
    Title note set out under section 101 of this title and Tables.

    ____________________________________________________________________

    AUTHORITY OF
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURTY

    PUBLIC LAW
    107-296, AMENDED REVISED STATUTE section 4233, NAVIGIABLE WATERS, OUTER CONTINEL SHELF .MARITIME SECURITY FACILITIES

    33 CFR Part 109 – GENERAL

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/part-109

    Authority:

    R.S. 4233, as
    amended, 28 Stat. 647 as amended, 30 Stat. 98, as amended, sec. 7, 38 Stat.
    1053, as amended, sec. 6(g)(1), 80 Stat. 940; 33 U.S.C. 180, 258, 322, 471; 49 U.S.C. 1655(g)(1);
    Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
    0170.1.

    33 C.F.R. PART
    105–MARITIME SECURITY: FACILITIES

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-10/html/2013-16516.htm

    1.
    The authority citation for part 105 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:
    33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 70103; 50 U.S.C.

    191;
    33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of

    Homeland
    Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

  • Dominicon

    I am glad we have brave patriots like all of you fighting against the liberal invasive government!

    It is a good thing all of you have been pointing out the liberal, invasive agenda Bush and his cronies put in place with the unread and forced through Patriot Act!

    Or did most of you not know this even existed till a Reagan appointed judge upheld a Bush administration policy and just assumed it was Obama’s doing? From the majority of the comments I have my answer.

    Follow the hype sheeple, facts will just confuse you.

    • Sheila Hunt

      it’s always Bush’s fault

      • Dominicon

        Not always. But in this case it was done under his administration, by a congress his party held in majority, so yes, this time it is.

  • Arne Saknussemm

    No matter what the issue, they can always find some corrupt judge to rule the way they want. Anyone with a shred of common sense knows there’s no such thing as a constitution free zone in the US.

  • Last Bastion

    It’s not a “constitution free” zone. And this judge is an IDIOT. This pertains to immigration and illegal aliens, not established American citizens!

  • Matthew Reece

    The problem is the idea of the state itself, not the particular people in power. You cannot vote the state out of power, and the act of voting gives the government an appearance of legitimacy that it should not be given.

  • Gregory Link

    Good Day Commrads, welcome to the United States Socialist Republic ruled by our wonderful dictator Barack Ovomit. Makes me sick that people have let this country succomb to this degree of “political” correctness and extreme socialism ideas. Our founding fathers must be so proud.

  • Leroyspoboys

    I love this website because it makes me laugh at the thought pf anyone who actually takes it seriously.

    I’m an ultra conservative who thinks 99% of our Government should be in jail (on both sides of the aisle)….and even I can see through the bullshit being spewed by this site.

  • hesthatguy

    Ok Obama is not a Communist, nor is he a socialist, in fact the American government has a history of overthrowing socialist regimes and backing dictators. These are the words your looking for :
    “Inverted totalitarianism is described as a system where corporations
    have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps
    politics. In inverted totalitarianism, every natural resource and every
    living being is commodified
    and exploited to collapse and the citizenry are lulled and manipulated
    into surrendering their liberties and their participation in their
    government by excess consumerism and sensationalism.”—wiki
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    Of course Neo-Facism would also be more appropriate, don’t believe me ask this guy……”Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” – Benito Mussolini
    Why do so few of us know this, why isn’t it on the news?
    “A media system wants ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity” ~ Nazi Doctor Joseph Goebbels
    The Nazis Called themselves socialists when in fact they where secretly pushing for a Fascist agenda. Kinda like calling yourself Democrat or Republican(different words same agenda), and actually be pushing Neo-Liberalism and inverted totalitarianism. Just don’t mind the man behind the curtain.

  • desertspeaks

    Gee a judge whose oath of office is meaningless to his POLITICAL AGENDA! that’s TREASON and SEDITION!
    Show me WHERE in the Constitution it allows for the SUSPENSION of one right over another? YOU CAN’T AND NEITHER CAN ANY JUDGE! ITS FRAUD UPON THE COURT!

  • jppcasey

    It’s almost like our government is begging for a revolution. Almost daring us.

    • Rob Adcox

      Almost? Sic Semper Tyrannis.

  • Hated Hydra

    Since this is the case, then us citizens are not bound by any laws as well. NICE!!!!! Good thing we have plenty of gun owners within this boundary.

  • Just Sayin

    This isn’t an Obama administration policy. Learn to do your research and check your facts. The precedent was set before he even became president.

  • Poppa Homage

    This is BS. Where’s your Congressmen? Wheres your Senator? This is simply bull crap and folks who believe are really stupid

  • just my opinion

    why do i feel this is bullshit? and 6500 were searched from 2008-2010??? dont you think such a small number indicates if searches are being done it is on people who are suspected of something? says 2/3 of population lives in the area…..smh…this is either a bullshit piece made to get ppl hyped up, or someone who is doing something wrong and was searched is trying to cover up so they can say it was random

  • W Meyer

    You know it’s bad, when even the ACLU is against the Feds.

  • jimmers

    More UN Directives & of course must obey all Anti-American Directives from the Mother Land Israel

  • trigon400

    Judge “Korman” passed this?
    Why is it that Jews seem hell bent upon removing our bill of rights?
    If it isn’t Schumer, Lautenberg, Schakowski, Wasserman Schultz, Bloomberg, Boxer & Feinstein trying to disarm us, it’s Levin & Lieberman with their NDAA & Patriot acts.
    It stinks like 1917 all over again, but too many of us know which chosen tribe was behind that really big, unembellished holocaust that killed 20 million Russian Christians…
    It’s too bad that Steven “Spielberg” & Roman “Polanksi” refuse to make movie about that event.
    Never again!
    Never disarm!

  • alnga

    perhaps if we all bold typed our feeling against government intrusion into our lives that they would just go away.. But hat has already been done and they are still here with us. So may be we are just a short while from when stronger methods must be used. We have a great and exceptional nation, but for one person who has finally reduced us to a sniveling and crawling facade of what we were and can be again.

  • Patrick

    This is awful, but I do have a couple questions: does the US border on the oceans actually start at the coastline, or where international waters end? I’m not too familiar with maritime law.

    Second, is there anything in the decision wherein the judge discusses the rights of those traveling *near* the border prior to this? I mean, he does try to rely on what DHS has done recently, but that does NOT, obviously, vitiate the constitutional requirement. Not only that, but even requiring one to prove citizenship is not even REMOTELY close to the same thing as searching someone.

    Third, in the past, could someone walking up to a border, say to bid someone else goodbye who was actually crossing the border, be searched without suspicion? I, somehow, highly doubt it. So, this judge’s at least partial, if not majority, reliance on what the government could do to those actually *crossing* the border makes absolutely no sense in this situation.

    Ugh, this is atrocious.

    • 600 Horses

      The USCG patrols well beyond our territorial waters.

      Complicated question, maybe someone out there has a good answer.

      When someone walks up to our border, and our agents are able to detain that person, they will, in a heartbeat, detain that person. They are supposed to notify the Mexican authorities in this event. Things are much different at the Canadian border, because there’s not a lot of call, for people to do illegal border crossings.

      • LeeO

        Not complicated at all. It’s totalitarian tyranny.

  • J Rejent

    He was nominated by Reagan. Check your facts before you make stupid ASSumptions, ditto heads.

  • Big M

    Anybody who could believe this whore’s decision is lawfully binding on anybody is an imbecile. Who is this jackoff in the first place? I’ll tell you who. A crooked lawyer with a robe, that’s who. A crooked lawyer who owes their job to the crooks whose bullshit “law” is A-OK with this robed crook. I have to laugh my ass off at people who take seriously a system that allows people who write and vote on “laws” to be able to pick the people who will decide whether their “laws” can be enforced on living, breathing human beings. Except that the people who take this shit seriously vote and reproduce. That scares me far more than anything else.

  • Sooriamoorthy

    Edward Korman must be a judicial ignoramus: in a Constitution-free zone, whatever that may mean, NO law can be applicable; there can be no law enforcement either.Consequently every one should be free to do absolutely anything he or she wants without the interference of the law which can only be null and void.
    Where did that jerk study law, if indeed he did study law?

  • Lonnie S.

    I am fine with this, until obama makes islamist exempt, and he will.

  • Alemu Sheldon

    Wasn’t the US Constitution created to prevent this sort of thing from happening???

  • jennfire

    Obama refuses to protect our borders. He truly believes he is the Fuhr!

  • Esteban

    This policy while continued under Obama was a Bush era policy if you check the ACLU’s link the story was written in Oct of 2008.

    https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone

    Obama while not changing the policy didn’t create the policy.

    Mr. Obama has enough to answer for in his wrong doings let’s not lay someone else’s issues at his feet.

    • archangel

      Do me a favor, please clarify WHEN, as in, precisely what date was this policy signed into effect. Because if the Act was written in October 2008, did Bush sign it into effect before Obama was inaugurated in January 2009 or did Obama sign it? Because, then, my question is, did Bush write it? Did he tell someone to write it? Doubtful. I’m not defending Bush, the Bush administration did a whole lot of unconstitutional bullshit under the name of “protection”, but ultimately, Bush’s time is passed. Obama is the one who is at fault here. Continuing the previously Boss’s policies does not remove guilt from the current Boss. If the current Boss feels this or that policy is wrong, it is up to him or her to remove it. If they don’t, they assume the mantle of being wrong.

  • joe

    encrypt your laptop :)

  • billcatz

    As long as you keep electing Democrats and Republicans, this will never stop. Neither party respects The Constitution, Law, or YOU! If you want to take this country back, you need to shed the two party system.

    • archangel

      Part of that issue is that as soon as the two party system is shed, the parasites within the DNC and RNC will starting infecting the new parties. Its not like they are going to leave or die. They are still going to be in the United States and they are still going to want to be in power, which means they will do whatever it takes to achieve this goal. In the meantime, they will continue to stymie the efforts of people trying to “fix” everything, up to and including the federal government.

  • Joe Lovell

    Seems like he is going against SCOTUS precedent:

    “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to
    withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to
    place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them
    as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty,
    and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly,
    and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the
    outcome of no elections.”

    : Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West
    Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

  • Karl Baba

    I don’t see why the judge cites the alleged non-necessity of carrying a laptop for allowing searches. The 4th amendment covers searches of our “Papers” whether they are essential or frivolous. Somebody should make him type his rulings up on a typewriter.

  • Lucifer Light

    Oh your disappointed, but the ACLU will never file charges of treason against him, because they are communist scumbags

    • The_Magic_M

      Why don’t you?

      • http://luvsiesous.com/ el_guero2000

        I don’t like your friend, but this is treason, “Violation of allegiance toward one’s country …. ” Very simple.

  • Lucifer Light

    Hitler was right. Now we live in a communist shit hole.

  • Tom

    This is some kinda bullsht !!!

  • LST

    Ovomit can eat my shit, the worthless muslim dictator.

  • Christopher Erickson

    You realize that by backing the PATRIOT ACT the GOP is the starting point for a lot of these unconstitutional acts. So you reap what you sow.

    • http://luvsiesous.com/ el_guero2000

      That is a non-starter and non-sequitor.

      Patriot Act was about spying upon people in foreign terrorist organizations.

      That does not worry me, I have NO contacts in foreign terrorist (or local) organizations.

      I have crossed the border. And there is no reason for Obama to search me.

      We should search him …. daily.

      Wayne
      Luvsiesous.com

      • Christopher Erickson

        Read the act. It was to route out terrorists wherever they were to be found foreign and domestic. They even had the audacity to arrest a public in Washington state because he was assigned a case defending a terrorist suspect. More citizens have been arrested thenf foreigners. Sorry your argument is invalid.

        • http://luvsiesous.com/ el_guero2000

          I am against the Act, for the same reasons I think you are.

          Wayne

  • The duck

    District Judge Edward Korman lives within the constitution free zone. So his home and everyone in it needs to be strip searched once a week. Who knows what he and his have been doing for that time? Might be he had a super sized drink or some other subversive issue.

  • Joe Zamora

    After reading some of the comments here, it’s obvious that scare tactics still work. This law has been on the books for decades and I’d bet that not one of you have been stopped and searched… even after all the puny threats of “nobody’s gunna search me.” Read the actual law, get educated before blurting out idiocy….
    Talk of hanging or shooting federal judges… nice bravado, nothing like an internet Rambo to lower the IQ of the whole web site.

  • Joe Zamora

    Scare tactics… nothing more.

  • Joe Zamora

    Funny how my full comment was deleted.
    So much for the truth….

  • http://luvsiesous.com/ el_guero2000

    Scary.

    They can delete all the files on your computer by accident, and call that reasonable?

    ObamaNation is out of control.

    Wayne
    Luvsiesous.com

  • OldmanRick

    Seems this decision may be appealed. It even sounds as if we have a judge legislating from the bench rather than from law.

  • Chloe Rowles

    Didn’t the Supreme Court just issue a ruling that the government officials cannot seize or view Cell phones without probable cause or a warrant? I think that reverses this ruling which includes any electronic equipment. Not sure though.

  • epaminondas

    Since I live in Maine, I find that a suspension of the Constitution by ANY means in the ENTIRETY this state, impossible to believe, frankly. I would welcome having the standing to reverse this for having my laptop, smart fone (whose privacy was JUST reinforced by SCOTUS) etc forcibly searched while taking a ride from Bangor to Bar Harbor because in Maine the 4th Amendment is ILLEGAL?