http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/092006search.cfm
The Student Teacher Safety Act of 2006 (HR 5295) would require any school receiving federal funding--essentially every public school--to adopt policies requiring teachers and school officials to conduct random, warrantless searches of every student, at any time, on the flimsiest of pretexts. Saying they suspect that one student might have drugs could give officials the authority to search every student in the building.
These searches could take the form of pat-downs, bag searches, or strip searches depending on how administrators interpret the law.
House leaders circumvented the usual legislative procedure to bring the bill to a quick vote. It did not pass through the committee process, but went straight to the House floor. There, it was passed by a simple voice vote, so constituents cannot even find out how their Representative voted.
2006-11-14 08:29:56 · 10 answers · asked by big-brother 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"C = JD" Its easier to pick on the gazzelles than the Lions.
2006-11-14 08:40:40 · update #1
"tinker thinker" I suppose that makes it right.
2006-11-14 09:06:03 · update #2
Amazing, isn't it, how many rights get stolen all in the name of 'for the children'. Considering that public school teachers unions are heavily Democrat, one wonders why they'd seek to invade the privacy and rights of the students in this manner.
Watch out for do-gooders who do things 'for the children' or 'for your own good' - they will casually toss aside your rights for their cause.
"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." Albert Camus
2006-11-14 08:42:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Students have been strip searched before this bill came along. When I was in high school they had a female security officer strip search a girl who was accused of stealing $10 from another student.
2006-11-14 16:43:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
I wonder how the Justices of the US Supreme Court would compare this Act to the 4th Amendment. (I have not read the text of the Act, however.)
"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 to be seized."
2006-11-14 16:39:24 · answer #3 · answered by C = JD 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Thanks for the recap of the news article. Do you have any idea what the actuall bill says? You seem to be taking this writer's opinion as fact. The article doesn't even quote the bill. That makes me suspicious of this opinion. It may be biased.
2006-11-14 16:56:12 · answer #4 · answered by Gypsy Girl 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Knowing the Dumbya Coup, that would be to give Mark Foley a job he would like. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!
2006-11-14 16:53:32 · answer #5 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It would if your name was MARK FOLEY!!! Or that Preacher Speed Freak! Thank you for your insightful question.
2006-11-14 16:35:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
This has been happening all along, now they've just made it legal to do so.
2006-11-14 16:34:26 · answer #7 · answered by LadySable 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
So, some ppl take away the very life of children and its legal.
2006-11-14 17:00:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
there is nothing in that bill that states a child will be stripped search.
please dont overglamorize the issue.
2006-11-14 16:42:34 · answer #9 · answered by wizywyg 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
They should start with Dubya.
2006-11-14 16:41:48 · answer #10 · answered by Mysterio 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋