Bush's Constitution-Lite Zone

The U.S. Government has long maintained a policy that they have the right to stop and search anyone at the border. The Department of Homeland Security is now taking the position that “the border” is the 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States. The ACLU took all the recent census maps and came to a rather surprising conclusion.

What we found is that fully TWO-THIRDS of the United States’ population lives within this Constitution-free or Constitution-lite Zone. That’s 197.4 million people who live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

That means the Fourth Amendment of the constitution, barring random and arbitrary stops and searches, does not apply to two-thirds of U.S. Citizens.

Shouldn’t Senator Leahy and the Judiciary Committee be looking into this?

This entry was posted in California, Censorship, Defense Policy, Economics, New Federalism, Politics, Surveillance, Travel and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Bush's Constitution-Lite Zone

  1. Sabeke says:

    Even scarier: the majority of people in the CFZ are Democrats. Hmmm.

  2. Patrick says:


    Coincidence. Just coincidence. And just ignore that Federal Agent behind the curtain.

  3. Alex Bowles says:

    Any rational point of view would hold that ‘at the border’ means ‘at the point where you cross into / depart from US Territory’.

    In other words, a trajectory – and not just a position – is an essential component of determining whether or not somebody is ‘at’ the border in a way that limits their rights.

    But what do we expect? We let Nanci Pelosi get away with saying that impeachment was 100%, no questions asked, off the table. She made it explicitly clear that George W. Bush would never be held accountable for anything, and twisted arms throughout her party to make sure the rank and file fell into line.

    Corruption is as corruption does, I suppose. Obama’s going to have his hands full with that one. In the meantime, 2/3 of American can now be treated like criminals by federal authorities that have proved to be entirely unaccountable, even to the English language (Exhibit A: John Yoo’s definition of ‘torture’).

  4. Dan says:

    When you allow a petty tyrant to strut around and admire himself in his tyrant uniform long enough, he starts to get very bad ideas.

    Of course, that was within months after this weasel and his gang hijacked the White House.

    When you hear him talk about liberty, this is what he means: Do what I tell you or else.

  5. Dan says:


    “that was CLEAR within months”

  6. Rick Turner says:

    Mission accomplished…
    Wonder what McCain thought of Bush being on deck in a flight jacket proclaiming victory…

  7. Lloyd Alter says:

    I am not sure that the map is accurate. As a Canadian living 25 miles north of the border, I would note that the border is not the shore as depicted here, but the agreed lines between the countries or the two hundred mile limits. So Chicago is not in the border area (because all of lake michigan is in the US and the border is far to the north) and there are huge areas of conflict between Canada and Mexico.

    I am not a supporter of the Bush administration and I am a supporter of the ACLU, but the map is disingenuous, the coast is not the border.

  8. Lloyd Alter says:

    to correct my previous comment, there are border conflicts between canada and the US and between the US and Mexico, not between Canada and Mexico. We would like everything north of the Columbia River back, please.

  9. Ben says:

    I think you are not being paranoid enough here. Does the U.S. have a sky border? Or an underground border? Might as well stay on the safe side and color the whole map.

  10. Rick Turner says:

    Lloyd, depending on who gets elected, you may find a bunch of us praying that you take all of the US north of Tijuana, Ensenada, the Rio Grande and the Gulf Coast. I don’t mind the Queen on currency…

  11. If Canada takes over do we get better beer and more hockey? All that and the Queen (and my hero Rick Turner)? count me in.

  12. billy-bob says:

    Hey! Can we give Alaska to Putin in the bargain?

  13. Andres says:

    Thanks again Jon.

    What is worrisome is to contemplate what the rationale for this particular interpretation of the fourth amendment is and the motivation to implement it. Why now? Why this? How long has it been in the works? Combined with the advent of private armies like KBR and Blackwater, to name a few… weird times.

  14. MS says:

    Actually, there was a 100-year-old successful joint U.S./Canadian committee that settled border disputes, until…

    Our wonderful Bush administration dumped the U.S. committee chair because he would not favor a U.S. owner of a gigundo home he wanted to build on the Canadian border, but did not comply with previously agreed-upon regulations …

    Another problem for an Obama administration to clean up.

  15. Josh C says:

    The thing that scares me is that the party heads and established politicians are going to want to keep these policies of extraordinary executive power in their back pocket. The Democrats probably don’t want all of this power publicly known either because they allowed for it and who knows, maybe they’ll want to exercise some of it. I hope Obama brings it to light and restores a little confidence in the checks and balances system of our government.

  16. Damien says:

    Impeachment… sigh

    Darth Cheney is the reason Bush gets away with his crimes. Also the Democratic majority is depends upon 2 Independents, one being Joe (soon to be unemployed) Leiberman. No imoeachment was ever going to happen anyway.

  17. Thomas says:

    This didn’t just start; and it has nothing to do with Bush. That power was spelled out in INA (Immigration and Nationality Act) 287. Which was enacted in 1957. How is that Bush’s fault?

Leave a Reply