How about sitting in a boat fishing ... or a shooting house or a tree stand hunting ... legally?

What's the standard there?

It has everything to do with how the selection is based. I'm fine if there are public due process proceedings and a time limit is given so it can't be drug out. The fact is, how trump and Hillary want it, a group of non elected people, in a back room somewhere can put anyone they want on the list.

I guess you are missing the point. As you say, it's already outlined as unconstitutional. Yet, wrap your head around this, trump is a proponent of trampling your constitutional rights, and Hillary wasn't............he wants the stop and frisk that was ruled unconstitutional in New York. Maybe it's going to be readdressed in his term if he wins....

Of coarse, Hillary is a woman of her word. Her word is whatever she thinks you want to hear. Trump just says whatever the first thing is to pop in his mind.

Truth is the president doesn't decide this issue one way or the other.

Unfortunately for us, they probably do in this election since they can nominate sc justices.

It takes two to tango on the thin blue line.

The 2nd amendment is a right protected by the Constitution. No right can be revoked without due process. No fly no buy bypasses due process. What if they said no fly no vote? Or no fly no freedom of speech/religion?

I got the point. He is pissing in the wind to claim it is constitutional, per se. Guiliani's argument is that some parts of New York are so crime infested that just being there and fitting a certain profile makes you reasonably suspicious. Personally, I think he's probably correct in his assertion, but it doesn't pass constitutional muster and it shouldn't be legal. Like I said, this question was answered years ago under Terry so what is new about it to make it reviewable?

BTW, Guiliani wrote a book awhile back titled Leadership in which he discusses these issues and crime in New York. It is my opinion that he was a good mayor for New York, especially considering the times, but he tries to take too much credit for Bill Bratton's work. Bratton was his Police Commissioner. Really an interesting book that discusses profiling issues in a post 9/11 America.

For the record, while I think Trump is wrong on this issue, it is far from being enough to pull me into the Hillary camp.

Interesting column in today's Wall Street Journal by Giuliani about SaF, and he says Trump was right:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-is-right-about-stop-and-frisk-1475018152

I didn't see the debate, so how did the topic come up? It sounded like to me that Hillary was suggesting that Trump wants to expand Stop and Frisk beyond the Terry decision.

There hasn't been an issue with the constitutionality of a Terry Stop since the decision. The only issues that are generally involved are if there was "reasonable suspicion" and whether or not the pat down was too invasive.

I guess that explains why Hillary couldn't pass the D.C. bar exam.

No, the topic got around to gun control/crime/etc. she gave her normal spiel. Trump brought up the stop and frisk model that was implemented in New York, said he liked that etc. she hammered him on it being ruled a. Unconstitutional b. Racially discriminating. That was the ruling in court. He the. Guffawed about how it wasn't unconstitutional, discriminatory, etc.

Very disturbing ideas he has, to go along with the social programs he advocates.

I havent figure out where he stands for sure on healthcare.
Hope he wont be another Socialist/ Light if he's elected.

For it to be unconstitutional, Fox News and their pundits are adamant that it is legal.

It is if there is reasonable suspicion. That is the key element that they keep leaving out of the equations.

Yep, that pesky reasonable suspicion...like stray was suspiciously checking the oil in his truck the other day.

Perzactly

With a gun showing in an iffy area known for robberies, that is going to fly in any court as reasonably suspicious. Like I first said on that matter, I'm not familiar with the area, so I don't know how bad it is.

Your right , it can be abused. It s been used to disperse crowds off the street and a lazy way to make a drug case.

Bad news, his views on healthcare don't differ much from the left

This is a perfect example of why we want the constitution followed. It's easy to view this stuff as acceptable when it isn't happening to you. It's another thing when it is happening to you. An easy example is no further away from Lois Lerner.