Congress Quietly Passed A Bill Allowing Warrantless Searches of Homes - Only 1% Opposed It

By Rachel Blevins of The Free Thought Project

A bill that will allow homes to be searched without a warrant was passed with overwhelming support by the United States Congress, and signed into law by President Trump—and it happened with no media coverage and very little fanfare.

On the surface, House Joint Resolution 76 looks harmless. The title of the bill claims that its purpose is Granting the consent and approval of Congress for the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia to enter into a compact relating to the establishment of the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission.”

“Whereas the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, an interstate compact agency of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of Maryland, provides transportation services to millions of people each year, the safety of whom is paramount; Whereas an effective and safe Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority system is essential to the commerce and prosperity of the National Capital region; Whereas the Tri-State Oversight Committee, created by a memorandum of understanding amongst these 3 jurisdictions, has provided safety oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.”

The proposal for a safety commission to act as a wing of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority may sound logical, when its power includes thing such as the ability to Adopt, revise, and distribute a written State Safety Oversight Program” and to “Review, approve, oversee, and enforce the adoption and implementation of WMATA’s Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.”

However, there is one major red flag buried within the text of the bill that stems from the list of “powers” given to the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission, and it violates one of the basic tenets of the U.S. Constitution.

“In performing its duties, the Commission, through its Board or designated employees or agents, may:Enter upon the WMATA Rail System and, upon reasonable notice and a finding by the chief executive officer that a need exists, upon any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System, including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government, for the purpose of making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing as the Commission may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this MSC Compact, and such entry shall not be deemed a trespass.”

The text gives the Commission the authority to enter property near the Metro Rail System “without limitation” and without a warrant, for the purpose of “making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing.”

This clearly goes against the Fourth Amendment, which states that Americans’ rights 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.”

When the bill was brought to a vote in the House of Representatives, there were only five Congressmen who voted against it: Representatives Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan; Walter Jones, a Republican from North Carolina; Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky; Alex Mooney, a Republican from West Virginia; and Mark Sanford, a Republican from South Carolina.

Amash called out the hypocrisy surrounding the fact that even though this legislation is in clear violation of the Constitution, it was passed by Congress with overwhelming support. Only 5 of us voted against bill allowing govt to enter/search private property in parts of VA, MD & DC w/o warrant,” He wrote on Twitter.

This is not the first time Congress has quietly passed a bill that will take away some of the most basic rights from law-abiding citizens in the U.S., and it won’t be the last. One of the most important things to remember about this legislation is that it was ignored by the media, and while it may only affect the Washington D.C. metro area now, it could be laying the blueprint for future legislation across the country.


Swampster (not verified) Bes Sat, 08/26/2017 - 13:09 Permalink

It's neocoM, and Trump is the Orange Obowelmovement, aka the Orange Jewlius... aka Shabbos Goy for the Globalist, Neocom, ashkeNAZI jew World Order. ALL WHITE COUNTRIES MUST PERISH SO THE jew WORLD ORDER MAY FLOURISH!

In reply to by Bes

macholatte peddling-fiction Sat, 08/26/2017 - 15:29 Permalink

  ... an interstate compact agency of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of Maryland,....Didn’t DC vote 91% Hitlary? Aren’t Virginia and Maryland Deep Swamp territory?... including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government, An agency created by the Swamp now has the unlimited right to search Fed property... like file cabinets and computer hard drives and stuff like that?Excuse me Mr. President.  We have the right to search the White House so go fuck yourself.Long popcorn.

In reply to by peddling-fiction

jeff montanye espirit Sat, 08/26/2017 - 20:26 Permalink

that's pretty much the question.  how much is trump doing to get along, avoid assassination, consolidate his presidential powers, plan his eventual, legal, much looked for by his base, roundup of his enemies, and how much is he caving in to tptb?i still choose to believe it is closer to the former than the latter.  one reason is that is that the media and the deep state still seem to hate and fear him.  they continue to try trickier tricks to be able to impeach him or remove him via amentment .  charlottesville was a case in point.…

In reply to by espirit

Give Me Some Truth espirit Sun, 08/27/2017 - 08:58 Permalink

The article correctly cites the most important part of this "story" - the media completely ignored it. As always, when required the MSM does NOT report the truth. They are really in the "truth concealment" business. One should ask how did this come to be? We should acknowledge that much/most of what The Powers that Be do could NOT happen if the MSM was not making sure important truths are not reported.

In reply to by espirit

chumbawamba PeeramidIdeologies Sun, 08/27/2017 - 04:26 Permalink

Entirely wrong reading of the legislation in question. "Including", in legalese, presents the specific set that is subject to the particular code being established. In this case, the authority to search (with adequate prior notice) any adjacent federal government property is the only adjacent properties included in the authority.Certainly a slippery slope, and a common tactic used by the totalitarians: establish a foothold and then use it to slowly leverage open the door to more onerous laws by later amending the law and adding to the "included" properties that can be searched without a warrant. But this present instance demonstrates two things: one, the author doesn't know how to properly read legalese, and bee) sensationalized click bait can result from simple a misunderstanding of words.All that side, what really matters is the legislative intent (which sheds light on the included set), and whether it gets reported in the future when this legislation is amended to include non-federal properties.I am Chumbawamba.

In reply to by PeeramidIdeologies

hootowl chumbawamba Sun, 08/27/2017 - 11:31 Permalink

All the D.C., and Federal court demons have to do is to simply re-define the legal definition of  "adjacent" to mean virtually anything they want it to.  They do this all the time. Ex:  In U.S. fedreal tax law corporations, partnerships, and joint ventures are referred to as "persons", and this interpretation is then used to deceive the average American into believing that taxes that were originally passed upon fictional entities such as corporations, partnerships, and joint ventures in order to pass constitutional muster, may also be applied to sentient human beings/American citizens, (Thus the thugs and thieves in the IRS, the collection arm, "leg breakers", of the FED) although SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that federal taxes ("capitation") upon the "person" or "head" of American citizens are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.......And that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution did NOT add any such power to the federal government.  It was misinterpreted to provide a "hidden" tax to pay the usury charged by the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System and its associated international criminal bankster cartel that has been used to fleece the American People and other peoples of the world out of quadrillions of dollars of fiat, phony, debt-money, with which to finance both sides of the numerous permawars that enrich the demon banksters all over the world.

In reply to by chumbawamba

TimmyB Milton Keynes Sun, 08/27/2017 - 12:55 Permalink

No kidding. Rail lines are usually easements or right of ways that cross private and public property. To inspect a rail line, as this legislation allows, an inspector usually crosses private or public property to gain access to the rail line.

Concerning the "sky is falling" headline that this legislation allows the inspection of homes, that claim is completely false. No where does the legislation mention homes.

Moreover, if law enforcement attempted to justify a search of a home based on this legislation, it would get laughed out of court. If a law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution always wins out.

If people want to make-up some real sky is falling bullshit, if you have gas, electricity, or water lines on your property, those untilities already have the same right to enter your property to inspect and repair those lines. Worse, if your homes get gas, water, or electricity, employees from those companies already have the right to enter your property and read the gas, water and electric meters.

In sum, this legislation has zero to do with searching homes and everything to do with inspecting and maintaining public transportation lines. This legislation is no different than the dozens and dozens of other laws currently allowing the inspection and maintence of public utilities' lines when those lines cross private property.

In reply to by Milton Keynes

nmewn jerseychris Sun, 08/27/2017 - 07:18 Permalink

lol...I'm in the Chumba camp, its directed toward trying to run a transportation system in the present with an eye toward expansion through the regulatory/bureaucratic agencies in the future to include private property. They do this shit all the time and its usually sold to the masses under the guise of "public safety" or "modernization of infrastructure" or whatever the flavor of the month is.Now see, if it would have read:"...will not be considered trespass to censor speech, literature, remove works of art and rename public parks."...hardly no one would have a problem with it ;-)

In reply to by jerseychris

jin187 Shift For Brains Sat, 08/26/2017 - 16:34 Permalink

Yeah, if they do attempt to send in the jackboots to search peoples' homes, it won't hold up in court. The problem is that the police tend to act first and ask for forgiveness later. When the government loses, they lose nothing but a sum of money equivalent to what the government spends every 5 minutes, and maybe have to drop the charges against the people that had the joints, or handguns, or whatever piddly shit they find.

In reply to by Shift For Brains

Shift For Brains Stackers Sat, 08/26/2017 - 15:03 Permalink

I'm not an attorney but I am pretty sure this is just a case of sloppy construction. The "including" is supposed to enumerate the class that is subject to the law, which is federal property. Typically, the government would have to argue any expansion of this to non-federal property.The more interesting question, and one that may be relavent, is: does the federal government "own" all of the District of Columbia? It was set aside as the seat of the federation of states united, which is why Congress administers it and it is not permitted to vote as it is not part of that federation.If case law supports the interpretation that the federal government "owns" DC, then very clearly the law would affect every part and parcel of Washington, including residences which are on federal land.

In reply to by Stackers