Coast Guard not bound by US Constitution

I see a little edumacation is need here (naturally, when dealing with STN and Yurt).

Not everything is in the Constitution, or is everything not in the Constitution unconstitutional. The Coast Guard is governed under the Code of Laws of the United States, United States Code, U.S. Code, or U.S.C., specifically 6 U.S.C. § 468, 14 U.S.C. § 89(a)2 and 19 U.S.C. § and it's duties have been affirmed by the SCOTUS five times. It was originally established as a government entity under the Treasury Department by Alexander Hamilton in 1790, and was called United States Revenue Cutter Service.

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg531/LMR/APLMRI/AppG.pdf


Quit bitching about living in the greatest country on earth. If you don't like it, you do have the freedom to leave. Many residents of this world don't have that freedom.


 
Howey said:
I see a little edumacation is need here (naturally, when dealing with STN and Yurt).

Not everything is in the Constitution, or is everything not in the Constitution unconstitutional. The Coast Guard is governed under the Code of Laws of the United States, United States Code, U.S. Code, or U.S.C., specifically 6 U.S.C. § 468, 14 U.S.C. § 89(a)2 and 19 U.S.C. § and it's duties have been affirmed by the SCOTUS five times. It was originally established as a government entity under the Treasury Department by Alexander Hamilton in 1790, and was called United States Revenue Cutter Service.

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg531/LMR/APLMRI/AppG.pdf


Quit bitching about living in the greatest country on earth. If you don't like it, you do have the freedom to leave. Many residents of this world don't have that freedom.


Click to expand...

ROFL, the ultimate hypocritical libtard. now you LOVE this country, right. since SCOTUS has upheld this, it must always be right, so you fucktards have no real reason to complain about C.U., do you?
 
howey has that positivist outlook on the constitution. If it isn't in the constitution, then the government can do whatever it wants. Since the coasties aren't in the constitution, they can ignore it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I see, you little sheeple.
1) what 'license' are you referring to?
2) is safety a bigger priority that liberty?
3) how is a legitimate enterprise differentiated from an illegitimate enterprise?
4) If the maritime border is supposed to be 7 miles, where does the CG authority begin and end?
5) If you have the freedom to travel, how is the CG authority legitimate in open waters?

I can only assume that as a professional mariner, you know these answers, so answer them.
Click to expand...

1. http://www.uscg.mil/nmc/

2. Safety at sea is the number one priority. 1/3 of my ancestors with my last name drowned in the last 300 years.

3. Contraband. Are you a moron?

4. They enforce certain laws from 0-200 miles, others from 3-200 miles, and others world wide. There is no 7 mile line that I am aware of. State water extends 3 miles, original territorial line was 12 miles and for the purpose of mineral rights etc., the 200 mile line is enforced.

 
your ancestors (if you're telling the truth, doubtful) didn't drown because of search and seizure safety issues.

stop being a retard for one day rune.
 
too much of a pussy to address me directly rune?

i proved your claim about the IRS false and your claim that about your ancestors.

i predict you will hide in shame and not address my refutation of your claims.
 
Rune said:
1. http://www.uscg.mil/nmc/
Click to expand...

so if you didn't have this 'license', you wouldn't consider yourself a professional mariner?

Rune said:
2. Safety at sea is the number one priority. 1/3 of my ancestors with my last name drowned in the last 300 years.
Click to expand...
so liberty is of little value to you. got it.

Rune said:
3. Contraband. Are you a moron?
Click to expand...
nice dodge, but seeing how safety at sea is your number one priority, it seems you've answered that question already. That nobody has any rights on the water or in a boat.

Rune said:
4. They enforce certain laws from 0-200 miles, others from 3-200 miles, and others world wide. There is no 7 mile line that I am aware of. State water extends 3 miles, original territorial line was 12 miles and for the purpose of mineral rights etc., the 200 mile line is enforced.
Click to expand...
so I was right, that the CG is not bound by the constitution....at least in your opinion.
 
I applied for and submitted to a voluntary dockside Coast Guard inspection today. In doing so I learned that my liferaft was improperly stowed, as well as not having a mandatory weak link so it could float free in the event the vessel were to sink. This knowledge alone of course could prove priceless.

By passing a dockside safety inspection, I can now avoid most routine boardings by simply telling the Coast Guard the serial number and date of the sticker.
Furthermore, I am then immune from any possible safety equipment fines.
 
Rune said:
I applied for and submitted to a voluntary dockside Coast Guard inspection today. In doing so I learned that my liferaft was improperly stowed, as well as not having a mandatory weak link so it could float free in the event the vessel were to sink. This knowledge alone of course could prove priceless.

By passing a dockside safety inspection, I can now avoid most routine boardings by simply telling the Coast Guard the serial number and date of the sticker.
Furthermore, I am then immune from any possible safety equipment fines.
Click to expand...
Now isn't it nice being able to admit that you need someone else to tell you how to maintain your own equipment?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Now isn't it nice being able to admit that you need someone else to tell you how to maintain your own equipment?
Click to expand...

The last time I owned a ship the weak links hadn't been invented yet. As to the requirements and their enforcement, I am grateful for those because a lot of needless loss of life has been avoided by shipowners being compelled to install needed safety equipment.

Your attitude about this is simply amazing to me. Do you think children should walk about with loaded handguns as well?
 
Rune said:
The last time I owned a ship the weak links hadn't been invented yet. As to the requirements and their enforcement, I am grateful for those because a lot of needless loss of life has been avoided by shipowners being compelled to install needed safety equipment.

Your attitude about this is simply amazing to me. Do you think children should walk about with loaded handguns as well?
Click to expand...
Reductio ad absurdum
 
Rune said:
The last time I owned a ship the weak links hadn't been invented yet. As to the requirements and their enforcement, I am grateful for those because a lot of needless loss of life has been avoided by shipowners being compelled to install needed safety equipment.

Your attitude about this is simply amazing to me. Do you think children should walk about with loaded handguns as well?
Click to expand...

then you support abandoning the 4th amendment across the board?
 
Rune said:
I applied for and submitted to a voluntary dockside Coast Guard inspection today. In doing so I learned that my liferaft was improperly stowed, as well as not having a mandatory weak link so it could float free in the event the vessel were to sink. This knowledge alone of course could prove priceless.

By passing a dockside safety inspection, I can now avoid most routine boardings by simply telling the Coast Guard the serial number and date of the sticker.
Furthermore, I am then immune from any possible safety equipment fines.
Click to expand...

are you seriously this fucking retarded?

that has NOTHING to do with the OP and the violation of the 4th amendment.

hence why you VOLUNTARILY submitted. even if it was not voluntary, you would still be given notice. you have no clue about the constitution. you are a liberal lemming that simply obeys your masters.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Did you know that the US Coast Guard can board your boat anywhere, anytime, in any manner whatsoever, whether it's on open water or even on land, and there is nothing that legally stops them?

http://www.sailfeed.com/coast-guard-boardings-and-your-fourth-amendment-rights-part-1

The U.S. Coast Guard Boarding Policy:

Title 14 section 89 of the United States Code authorizes the U.S. Coast Guard to board vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, anytime, any place upon the high seas and upon any waterway over which the United States has jurisdiction, to make inquires, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests. The U.S. Coast Guard does not require a warrant to conduct search, seizures, arrests over any United States Waterway or high seas. The U.S. Coast Guard also have full legal law enforcement power on any land under the control of the United States, as needed to complete any mission.​



The penalty for resisting the boarding is ten years of prison and $10,000 fine.

Over the years and many Supreme Court cases, the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that without a warrant or probable cause law enforcement can’t search your car, your office, your mountain cabin, your pocket, or your wood shed. According to the Constitution, law enforcement personnel can’t search anywhere in your private universe without probable cause or a warrant issued by a judge.

Except your boat: They can board your boat any time they please and look anywhere they want without warning, warrant, or cause, and they do so every day. This is called a “suspicionless search.”

Why can the Coast Guard search our boats without a warrant or probable cause when law enforcement is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment from searching our homes, cars, offices, or motorhomes?

http://www.sailfeed.com/coast-guard-boardings-and-your-fourth-amendment-rights-part-2

It’s always been this way. The same congress that passed the Bill of Rights passed the Revenue Service Act of 1790, which gave revenue cutters the right to search any vessel anywhere in US waters, and any US-flagged vessel anywhere in the world.

Our fledgling nation was strapped for cash, and tariffs were the way to solvency. This was controversial even back in 1790, since many of our gripes against the British, as stated in our Declaration of Independence, had to do with tariffs (see Boston Tea Party). The crews of revenue cutters were allowed to board vessels to make sure they’d paid the tariffs on their cargoes.
Click to expand...

No shit?

WOW!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top