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."
Re:Update on this story (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean collapsed? I think 99% of Americans would support this. Oh, you mean support by the few people that make decisions and can easily be bought.
Counter to federal laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Department of Justice has sent a letter to Texas legislative leaders warning that the rule would run counter to federal laws."
What ever happened to the 4th amendment? Isn't that federal law?
Re:Update on this story (Score:4, Insightful)
The people won't read it either. The contents of a law have very little correlation to people's support for it.
Re:Update on this story (Score:3, Insightful)
you are mistaken. Most people believe the pat downs make them safer. I bet half would not approve if eliminating them. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, just the perception.
Re:Update on this story (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, apparently "everything is bigger in Texas" does not include balls.
Re:Update on this story (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not even the perception, sir, unless you happen to work at the TSA and are paid to pretend that you think what you do for a living makes any positive difference whatsoever.
Re:"interesting to see if Texas can pave the way" (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be interesting as the primary defense against hijacking is a locked door, not a pat down.
Re:Update on this story (Score:5, Insightful)
I was actually contacted to give testimony to the state legislature about this by the ALCU (never got to). After a number of written complaints, action was taken and a bill set in motion... Too bad that the weak spineless reps didn't have the guts to follow through. The DOJ needs an overhaul after this mess.
Re:Update on this story (Score:2, Insightful)
US out of NORTH AMERICA!
Re:Update on this story (Score:5, Insightful)
Thereby making the TSA, by definition, terrorists.
Not Economically Feasible (Score:4, Insightful)
Despite their huffing and puffing it is not economically feasible or wise to shut down Texas air traffic. Houston is a major hub for several shipping companies and there are other large companies based in Texas. If they were to prevent air travel that would undermine the economic recovery they Feds have been chasing. Maybe not a lot, but a simple act like that would have rippling impacts and cost this country millions if not billions of dollars.
Texas should play their game and call their bluff.
Re:Update on this story (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress shall "make regular" the commerce AMONG the States. It says nothing about blocking commerce or forbidding citizens from crossing state lines (and the courts have ruled that multiple times over the last three centuries).
The Constitution also says nothing about providing health or welfare. The author of the constitution, James Madison, has already stated that is an absurd interpretation. "If that were true, the power of the central authority would be unlimited, and the enumeration of the powers pointless. There is a whole host of proofs to demonstrate that is not what I or the Craftmen intended.
"There is nothing more natural than to start with a general phrase, and then list a Specific list of particulars. Congress is thereby limited to only those powers enumerated and nothing more (amend. 10)."
Re:Update on this story (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear Lover of 1984-Style Government (aka, a liberal):
You mean except for the fact that most of the pro-government rulings on commerce clause cases have had majority conservative justices? Yeah, let's ignore that completely.
Re:Counter to federal laws? (Score:4, Insightful)
Trumped by the commerce clause and general welfare clause
Hey, that's convenient. Any time you cross state lines, you're engaging in interstate commerce. That means the 4th amendment doesn't apply!
Hold on! Even if you're not crossing state lines, you might have drugs in the trunk! That means we can search your car due to the general welfare clause.
You could also argue it is not an unreasonable search
That would be a laugh!
If the commerce clause and general welfare clause work the way you think they do, than none of the protections in the constitution are any protection at all. We might as well scrap the entire bill of rights. Oh wait, we already have.
Re:Update on this story (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Update on this story (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Maybe Indiana has the balls to do it first (Score:5, Insightful)
I would think committing sexual assault would be already against the law in every US state. If you discover after you go through security that you are going to have your genitals and breasts groped, you are threatened with arrest and financial penalty if you do not submit or if you attempt to escape the false imprisonment. The TSA saying it is a voluntary search would be an easily broken defence. There's a few top hands at the TSA that could have arrest warrants set on them for conspiracy to commit sex crimes.
Just following orders [wikipedia.org] has not been proven an infallible defence.
How about Texas boots the TSA out of their state, loads up planes using their own security procedures that follows the US constitution (namely the 4th [rights against unreasonable search and seizure], 5th [no person shall be deprived of property and liberty], 2nd [the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed], common law [wikipedia.org][right to travel], and especially the 10th [powers not delegated to the US by the constitution are reserved to the states]). Then they can see if the US government is willing to shoot down planes full of US citizens or let them crash after they run out of fuel instead of granting a landing. Be ready to hire your own air traffic controllers too. Security theatre is unnecessary, a terrorist would have to buy every ticket on the flight to have a chance of committing another 9/11 attack, because passengers would beat a hijacker to death with their bare hands.
Re:"interesting to see if Texas can pave the way" (Score:5, Insightful)
The primary defense against hijacking is a plane filled with people that aren't willing to be hijacked. 9/11 already did that.
Re:Update on this story (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (laws that limit home consumption to Now maybe I'm being unfair. I'll grant that. But they CALL themselves liberal, and based upon what I see them doing (killing the internet/limiting freedom), I don't want to associate with that label.
Re:Update on this story (Score:5, Insightful)
So many people who claim to have such great knowledge about the constitution seem to miss that last line in Section 8:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
How exactly does this prove your point? The Constitution enumerates the powers the Federal government holds, and prescribes limits upon that power. Therefore, Section 8 authorizes the government to pass laws that allow it to carry out those powers the Constitution grants to it. However, if the Federal government attempts to usurp powers that the Constitution did NOT grant to it, then nothing in that statement gives it authority to do so. If it did, then the Constitution would essentially be handing absolute, unlimited power to the Federal government. That is clearly not the case.
And, of course, you specifically seem to have missed the preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Again, your point? The Framers of the Constitution understood that there was a necessary role that the Federal government had to play in turning a loose alliance of independent states into a single nation. However, they also understood that a centralized government with unchecked power would grow to be a monster, and therefore they sought to strike a balance between a centralized government that was powerful enough to meet the needs of the nation ("establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare") while still providing balances to that power so that it didn't become a tyranny ("...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"). It's a balancing act.
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...but then, you don't like society do you, even though you've gain immense privileges by living in one.
No, you don't understand...not even remotely. Nothing GPP said even hinted that (s)he wanted to see society destroyed or laws abolished. In fact, if you will think objectively for just a moment, you will find that yourposition is much more likely to lead to chaos and anarchy than GPP's. You argue that the Federal government should be able to pass whatever laws it wants, regardless of what the Constitution allows, simply because it IS the Federal government. In other words, you want everyone in the country to obey the law, except for the Federal government itself. They, you think, are above the law. "Do as I say, not as I do"? No. Any leader -- whether individual or corporal -- must model respect for the law by themselves respecting the law, if they seriously expect anyone else to do likewise. Therefore, if the Federal government wants the people of the United States to uphold the law, they must uphold the law themselves, and thus the Federal government must be bound by the Constitution.
You have this ludicrous opinion that the Constitution is the ONLY law of the land, when it would be impossible for a society to exist without laws...
Those two points are not polar opposites; they are orthogonal. Like it or not, the Constitution IS the law of th
Re:Update on this story (Score:4, Insightful)
First,
Many State Prosecutors say that it is, and are arresting TSA officers for the act.
[citation needed]. I'm sure I would've heard of this, and if I somehow missed it I'd love to read it.
Second, you - like most people complaining about states' rights - forget that most decisions *are* left to the states. I agree with you that more *should* be left to the states. But the fact of the matter is that it is much, much easier to travel across the country than it once was. At the time of the Constitution's drafting, it was not feasible to traverse the country on a whim, fishing for a state that allowed whatever it is you wanted to do. For example, in my home state the age to buy tobacco is 19, but drive for an hour and you can buy them at 18. This wasn't exactly feasible at the time of the Constitution. Similarly, out-of-state sales tax was a non-issue until you could order online and have it shipped in 2 days. I know some people argue about sales tax, but the fact remains it's a good example of where increased mobility is subverting the original intent of state-based laws.
Finally, I don't really care what the Founders thought, aside from academically. One of the most important parts of the Constitution - and unquestionably the intention of the Founders - was that the Constitution was a living document, meant to be interpreted and changed as the nation grew. The Founders knew that the country in a few hundred years would be entirely different than the one they were in, and made this explicit. Their intentions are important for all Americans to understand as a matter of our history, but ultimately irrelevant. They're not gods, nor did they want to be. From my understanding of those men, they would have been mortified to hear that more than 200 years later, we were all running around going "but the founders!" Actually, that sounds like a religion - we've elevated them on a pedestal (as they've earned), but because of it some people aren't evaluating their words rationally and just accepting them as gospel.
Re:Update on this story (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why many shed the "liberal" label for "progressive." The liberal/libertarian cares about rights. The progressive cares about the children. Sometimes liberal really means "conservative" (where the "conservative" position on a subject implies more personal freedoms). The labels, they really mean nothing now.