DOJ Could Ban Texas Flights Over Anti-Patdown Law 377
hellkyng writes "The Department of Justice may ban flights from Texas because of the Anti-Patdown law making its way through the legal system. Says Rep. David Simpson, 'Someone must make a stand against the atrocities of our government agents.' Should be interesting to see if Texas can pave the way for grope-free flying fun."
Update on this story (Score:5, Informative)
As of earlier today, the law's main sponsor, Dan Patrick, R-Houston, said the law is dead after support for the law collapsed.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/28032459/detail.html [click2houston.com]
Re:Update on this story (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think you can get 99% of Americans to agree that the earth isn't flat.
Re:Counter to federal laws? (Score:4, Informative)
No actually you aren't. Too lazy to google it now, but it was here on /. and many other places about a guy who refused and tried to leave and was threatened with a $10k fine
Re:Update on this story (Score:5, Informative)
Interstate commerce clause trumps the 9th and 10th. At least that is what the courts will say, and they may be correct. That said, I support states telling the feds to fuck off, as that is the only thing that gets them to reconsider stupid regulations that do NOT make flying safer.
Should the Interstate Commerce Clause trump the 1st or 2nd? No. Why? Because the authors of the Constitution wrote it, but some were hesitant to sign it for various reasons. Those concerns were answered by the Bill or Rights, or 1st ten Amendments of the Constitution. You could consider Amendments to be updates or corrections to what was written before it. Therefor, amendments to the Constitution should trump the Constitution as it was written previously. For an example, alcohol is still illegal according to the Constitution, but a later amendment allowed it again. The same could be said as any amendment taking precedence over the Commerce Clause.
However, the 10th Amendment states that the US gov't may only do what is spelled out in the Constitution. Regulating interstate commerce is spelled out via the commerce clause. The problem is that the courts have allowed the INTERSTATE commerce clause to apply in commerce that never leaves a state. In other words, the courts have said the federal government has unlimited power under the commerce clause.
There's already an Anti-Patdown Law (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Update on this story (Score:4, Informative)
>>>I understand though. You hate society, you hate the idea of people working together, you hate the general idea behind the formation of the United States.
Wow. I'm surprised you didn't call me a "slut" like that Democrat Radio DJ did yesterday. Oh well. (shrug).
Jefferson and Madison - do you consider them "haters" too? You probably will after you read this: âoeResolved, That the several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government. But that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes â" delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.
"That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.â
Damn those Founding Fathers and their "hating society, hating people working together, and hating the general idea behind the formation of the United States." Those guys were nutjobs! (end sarcasm). No what I hate is having my penis felt up by strangers, or being irradiated by those scanners. You mentioned "other laws". Well: Isn't there a law forbidding sexual groping? Isn't that assault? Many State Prosecutors say that it is, and are arresting TSA officers for the act.
Cheers to them.
Re:Update on this story (Score:4, Informative)
I think you're confusing "liberal" with "politician". The Republicans have been quite big on telling us how to live. You can't have abortions, you can't marry someone of the same sex, you can't join collectively bargain with your employer, you can't sue companies that have a contract with you, you can't vote if you're an out-of-state student or poor city dweller.
Oh, and all those times we as a nation have come together to create a safety for those in need, through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and Food Stamps and Unemployment Benefits? Fuck those people! More tax cuts to the super-rich! Doesn't matter that the majority of the country disagrees with them. They'll hold our national credit rating hostage, and burn the country to the ground if they don't get what they want.
Re:Update on this story (Score:5, Informative)
I can only judge "liberal" by what I see, and what I see in France, Australia, England, and the US is liberal politicians (Sarkozy, Conroy, Obama, Schumer) working to censor the internet, tell us how to live, and how much energy we are allowed to consume
But by that definition, Karl Rove, Bush Jr., McCain, and such are also liberals. When your definition of "liberal" includes most politicians of both parties (and apparently all judges from the "conservative" party), then it seems to be a worthless definition.
I don't want to associate with that label.
Yes, that's obvious. You have some emotional reaction to the label that trumps all logic and reason, and thus you employ no logic or reason in any post related to that label. We see that. Though, I'm actually surprised. I didn't think you'd actually recognize that in yourself.
Re:Update on this story (Score:3, Informative)
Oh my, I wonder how those damned terrorists would ever manage to bypass these. Let us see what I can think up(and I am not even a terrorist, who actually think up this stuff full-time probably). Let us see.
1. Needles dipped in quick-acting toxins/poisons say Saritoxin. You have to take down just one guy to scare up others. Probably the said US marshal, as you pretend to walk past him. Just incapacitating him and declaring that you have a poison needle, will be enough.
Oh and you threaten a Air-hostess to get her to trick the pilot(s) into opening the cockpit door. They are allowed into the cockpits.
3. Smuggle in Anthrax powder or some such bio-hazardous material to the airport. If you are on a suicide mission like the 911 chaps, you can spread it around the airport *and* inside the flight. Everyone dead.
4. You can purchase beer bottles from duty free shops at the Air port itself(and take it with you as cabin luggage). Break one to get an instant knife with sharp edge.
http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/08/07/broken-bottle-used-as-weapon/ [thechronicle.com.au]
5. Just hide plastic explosives with a timer in your check-in luggage. If it is disguised well enough to pass the x-ray, it can be timed to blow up when the flight is passing over a populated area.
6. Just overpower the air marshal with help of your friends, to get the weapons you need from him.
7. Plan long term and get one of your guys an american citizenship like that David Coleman Headley guy and get him to become a commercial pilot. TSA can rape him..sorry pat him all they want. Pilots can crash the plane whenever they want.
I thought up these in flat 3-5 minutes. the folks who actually hate you and are terrorists will no doubt come up with hundreds of more plans. They need just one of them working.
Basically folks like you, the TSA and the entire USA government are idiots. The only way you beat terrorists is by ensuring that they don't hate you in the first place, or at least that they don't find much takers for their recruitment drives. One way to do that is by minding your own business. If you invading countries in the name of oil, you are just increasing the number of people who hate you. And when they hate you enough, they will always find some way to hurt you back in revenge.