HR 5295 - What?

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Malum Prohibitum, Sep 27, 2006.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
  2. RepeatDefender

    RepeatDefender New Member

    4,048
    0
    0
    "The bill says only that search methods cannot be "excessively intrusive."

    I would define ANY strip-search as excessively intrusive!
    These representatives are out of their minds and so is the NEA for supporting this legislation. No way this thing makes it to law...
     

  3. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    They are trying to see how much of our liberty we will give up in order to feel safe.
     
  4. RepeatDefender

    RepeatDefender New Member

    4,048
    0
    0
    I'll feel safer when I know my kids won't be searched by some dirtbag school administrator. I will also feel safer when I can carry my gun wherever I need to...but we all know that this will never happen.
     
  5. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Reading these posts made my blood boil thinking abou my kids. Trouble is, I don't they really accurately reflect what the bill says. Here's your link to the text:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c ... 109VD5WGi::

    The bill only quotes language from S Ct. decisions, then says that schools need to have policies in place that comply with that language, otherwise lose funds. While I still don't like the bill, it doesn't say anything about immunity, strip searches, body cavity searches, etc. It reads to me that they want schools systems to develop age, sex, and offense specific search practices in writing. Given the S Ct. decisions, teachers already have the ability to do this. Frankly a public process at each school board seems likely to me to yield more reasonable procedures that simply letting each teacher decide on the fly with no written rules. The harms that are foreseen by the WorldNetDaily, if they come, will come at your local school board level, not from this bill.
     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63

    Nope. It does not. I guess I should have read it before posting.

    In fairness, though, a federal lawsuit would be under 42 USC 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act) and the teacher would have qualified immunity as a defense. Not that it has anything to do with this bill . . .

    I wonder if we can ever get legislation that is more restrictive than what the S.Ct. says the Constitution allows?
     
  7. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    That's a good thought about the legislation to restrict beyond the S Ct. thoughts on the 4th A. What I particularly don't like is the 'reasonable suspicion or professional judgment' language. I've met some teachers whose professional judgment I wouldn't trust deciding to search my child. Basically, these are state law enforcement questions, so it would seem to me that the GA legislature could define what constitutes reasonable suspicion, or/and require that any searches of the person require parental notification and a witness or two.

    As far as the Section 1983 suits, Justice Scalia, et al have now decided that those alone are enough to deter police knock and announce violations. Given what a fabulous deterrent that would be, I'm shocked that you'd feel any further protections might be necessary for little school children, who are surely able to assert the full measure of their rights in the face of the principal standing over them. :roll: