Comments on: Judge Rules Stadium Searches Unconstitutional

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:05:59 +0000

It is clear that no right we have is absolute. Airport and border searches have been challenged a few times but with no success, especially in the wake of 9/11. Those searches have been deemed to be of a compelling governmental interest in protecting the safety of citizens as well as the country. Unfortunately our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches only goes so far. According to the ACLU there are currently over 100 cases of Muslim Americans being harassed at airports currently pending since 9/11.

By: Barry

Barry — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:28:14 +0000

Diane, that's pretty much the position of the Republican Part: "9/11 changed everything!".

Chris, thanks for pointing that out - I assumed that the stadium was publicly owned, since most team owners wisely avoid spending their own money on such things. It's much more frugal to get the government to subsidize your business, than to make your own huge capital investments.

By: Diane C. Russell

Diane C. Russell — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:39:08 +0000

In other words, DWPittelli,you think that 9/11 and earlier hijackings are a valid excuse for suspending the Constitution, presuming that all passengers are guilty until they prove themselves innocent, and probable cause is NOT required for searches, right?

It seems to me that the appropriate way to repeal or suspend our basic Constitutional rights would have been by amending or repealing the Constitution, not by the fiat of some government official.

Taking basic rights away by fiat is what Hitler, and Stalin and other infamous dictators did. It is shameful that our leaders are doing the same and even more shameful that people like you seem to think it is ok.

By the way, do you have any historical evidence that would indicate that people living in societies where the government searches everyone are really safer than people living in our formerly free society?

By: Chris Lawrence

Chris Lawrence — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:24:05 +0000

Ah, but Raymond James Stadium is a public facility, owned by the Tampa Sports Authority (a political subdivision of the state of Florida, by way of non-sovereign local governments), so the federal constitution applies due to selective incorporation.

Now, if the good folks at the Tampa Bay Buccaneers had paid their own cash money to build and operate the stadium, no constitutional issue would arise.

By: DWPittelli

DWPittelli — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:10:02 +0000

I don't think any of the airlines would or do oppose the security systems screening passengers today, which are, as in the Florida case, "a condition of entry into the premises." The reasonableness of airline security is based on recent history (many hijackings in the late 1960s, plus of course 9/11/01) and the consequences of not having such security -- much higher for airplanes than for immobile stadiums, and that there would be essentially no airline passengers otherwise -- and the reasonableness has been upheld by the judiciary.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 01:16:02 +0000

That does seem a little upside down, given stadiums are generally owned by the government and the planes are privately held...

By: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator

Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 01:11:53 +0000

Curry: Senate has clear choice in Alito

It is symbolic of the Senate battle ahead that one of federal appeals court Judge Samuel Alito?s bes