State Legislatures Attempt To Limit TSA Searches

OverTheGeicoE writes "Here's a familiar story: a breast cancer survivor's mastectomy scars showed up on a TSA scan, which forced a horrifying pat-down ('feel-up' in her words) of the affected area. The woman decided that she would not subject herself to that again, and was barred from a later flight from Seattle to Juneau for that reason. But now the story takes an interesting turn: the woman is Alaska State Rep. Sharon Cissna, and once she finally made it back to Alaska she started sponsoring legislation to restrict TSA searches. Her many bills, if passed, would criminalize both pat-downs and 'naked scanning,' as well as require better health warnings for X-ray scanners and even studies of airport screenings' physical and psychological effects. Other states, including Utah and Texas, are considering similar legislation. For example, Texas State Rep. David Simpson is preparing to reintroduce his Traveler Dignity Act again in 2013 if he is re-elected. The last time that bill was being considered the Federal government threatened to turn all of Texas into a 'no-fly zone'."

Finally

[Zaurus]

It's about time the pendulum starts swinging away from the abusive, oppressive practices that the terrorists have set in place over our society.

America is supposed to be the land of the free, home of the brave. Not the land of the willing to consent to invasive and abusive practices because of drummed up fear.

Oh yes... When it is US its OK, but THEM...

[SerpentMage]

Oh for effen crying out loud! When it is THEM then well we have a PROBLEM! But if they are not affected and we complain to the wahzoo we are complainers! No I want the TSA to keep going because I want THEM to start understanding how WE are dealt with by a government!

Why does it take a representative to be affected..

[nprz]

Why does it take a representative to be affected before they represent the people?
Aren't they supposed to be listening to us complaining and take action? Instead it seems like they only act on what is affecting them.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[i.r.id10t]

But is the TSA stuff law, or policy?

Re:Supremacy Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

This assumes that the federal law is constitutional. At the very least we could get the Supreme Court to weigh in on the question.

Turn it on its head

[Anonymous Coward]

It's natural for people to best understand the ramifications of law, policy, and procedure when it directly affects themselves. Perhaps a differently worded question is: wouldn't *we* be better off if our representatives more broadly represented us -- in terms of wealth, health, age, religion, ethnicity, educational background, etc.? That means more minorities and women, but it also means more factory workers [union and nonunion], more with a direct experience of poverty, more with a background in STEM, etc. Sure there are a few national politicians here and there who meet those kinds of broad demographics, but nowhere near the levels that America as a whole contains.

In short, elect fewer old white rich male lawyers and you may find a better cross section of legislative ideas and initiatives.

Re:Finally

[zoloto]

the government ARE the terrorists in examples like this

This rings hollow

[twotacocombo]

Call me a cynic, but why did this woman not actively support regaining our rights and dignity BEFORE she became a victim of the TSA? It seems a little self serving for her to suddenly pick up that flag only after her own personal traumatic experience. As a fellow human, I can sympathize with what she's gone through, but as a politician it looks less than righteous.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[Dunbal]

At the very least we could get the Supreme Court to weigh in on the question.

Have you seen the shit coming from the Supreme Court lately? As if that is going to help at all...

Re:Supremacy Clause

[El Torico]

... I'm beginning to think people like the IRS more than the TSA.

I think the IRS and the TSA are equally despised, but people see that the IRS at least has a purpose. On second thought, I agree with you, the TSA is regarded as worse than the IRS.

TSA procedures are largely symbolic

[IVI V K]

The TSA was created to comfort passengers after 9/11 by providing a highly visible change to the airport security measures through inconveniencing all passengers as much as possible.

In reality, even without the TSA, the nature of in flight security changed forever on 9/11. Now everyone understands that the risk of hijacked planes is far greater than just the lives of those held hostage on the plane. By showing the larger threat hijacked planes pose as weapons, the hijackers on 9/11 effectively ended hijacking as a means to terrorize the greater population since most will accept that hijacked planes must be shot down before the plane can be used to pose a larger threat. Passengers and crews now know that their only hope for survival in a hijack attempt is to take down the hijackers themselves and regain control of the plane.

Security is still required to keep weapons and bombs off of flights, but even the security before 9/11 was sufficient to deter the hijackers from bringing guns or other large weapons. As prisoners have shown, sharp weapons can be made from virtually anything solid, but these weapons would be less effective in a hijack today since the passengers and crew would be willing to be cut to overpower hijackers.

The only minimal additional security provided since 9/11 is in limiting compounds that could be used to make explosives with the intent of destroying a plane rather than hijacking. This is battle of diminishing returns, where ever growing intrusions into personal privacy and intrusions provide ever smaller degrees of increased security and protection.

I have no problem with scanned luggage and carryons, but requiring everyone to remove shoes and clothes is purely an attempt to make each passenger feel and intimately experience the security.

These are psychological steps that accomplish virtually nothing to improve our security, but only raise the perception of safety.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[lorenlal]

The IRS will at least occasionally give back when it has taken more than it should. The TSA has yet to do that.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[ndege]

The same situation occurred back in the day with Montana's [lack of posted] speed limit.

Its all about the federal income tax pulling from the pockets of [state] citiziens, then giving the funds back to the states if they play by the Federal "rules".

This is how the highway system has worked for years.

However, if taxes were decreased at a federal level and increased at the state level, the states would then be able to pay for their own roadwork without Federal involvement. But, how would that help Federal control?

Re:Supremacy Clause

[Grishnakh]

Right, and then the State can withdraw the requirement for its citizens to pay income taxes to the IRS. The next step from there is secession. States just haven't bothered with this for a long time because it wasn't worth it, but that may be changing soon.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, but that purpose was already served by the armored cockpit doors. Nothing else is required to prevent cabin access, and passengers are very unlikely to tolerate threats to other passengers or flight personnel as they did in the past.

Re:No Fly Zone

[Svartalf]

Golden Picnic Hamper? Heh... Texas could pretty much do without it...oh, and by the way, hope you jokers can do without 1/4-13rd of the GDP while you're at it.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[element-o.p.]

What most people don't realize, however, is that the 10th Amendment was effectively rendered null and void in 1865 [wikipedia.org]. Most people think the Civil War was about slavery, but it wasn't. While slavery was the issue du jour over which the Fed and the states were in dispute, the REAL issue was whether the Federal Government had the authority to overrule the individual states. The Tenth Amendment, as you correctly stated, said "No -- states rights trump Federal law." Unfortunately, the Fed decided to ignore that pesky little detail in a bid to outlaw slavery. Their intentions were good -- slavery is, without a doubt, an abhorrent, barbaric practice -- but the downside of the Civil War was that the Federal government became far more powerful than the Founding Fathers ever intended, usurping the authority of state governments in direct violation of the 10th Amendment. So technically, you are correct...but that tends not to be the way things actually play out in real life.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[girlintraining]

Then it just becomes a circular pissing contest.

Yes, well, we wouldn't want a state to get in a pissing contest with the federal government because they won't respect fundamental civil liberties that the state's citizens expect to be upheld. We all know what happens when people stand up for their rights. Far better to just quietly pray for things to change, surrender at every opportunity, and accept misery and injustice because fighting against it is just too. damn. hard.

Sir, please leave my country. Make room for an immigrant who is willing to participate in the democratic process, instead of just giving in to any authority that presents itself.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[w_dragon]

If several States were to move together, or if a major state (like Texas) had the balls to pass the legislation and force the federal government to actually screw with people's travel they may not get their way. At that point it would probably largely depend on which way public opinion fell and which politicians were sure to lose their jobs if they didn't back down.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[Runaway1956]

"unlikely to tolerate threats"

Funny thing is, the TSA is quite busy disarming honest people, so that any dishonest person who gets aboard with a weapon is more likely to succeed in his mission.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[snobody]

You can talk all you want about the the Supremacy Clause and other nuances, but the primary objection against the TSA has been about violations of the 4th amendment, forceably requiring what amounts to, in any other context, as sexual assault as a condition to board an airplane, or forcing people to go through a scanner that uses radiative energy that has been scientifically proven to increase cancer risk.

The TSA is no more entitled to feel up airline passengers than they are to shoot every 200th passenger in the head. The Feds cannot mandate that the TSA break the laws of the states.

Ultimately, this will be a PR battle. Any sheriff would be fully within his right to arrest TSA agents for what they do daily as a condition of their job. If the states wanted to force a change in TSA policy, all they would have to do is have the governor whisper into a sheriff's ear and, after a few TSA agents are arrested at the airport, let the TSA try to bail them out of jail and justify their policy in the court of public opinion. The state would win the PR war and the Feds would look like goons that they are

Re:Supremacy Clause

[residieu]

Stop talking logic. We're talking about the Commerce Clause here.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[It doesn't come easy]

Best reason I have heard for NOT sending money to the federal government. The federal government, in many many cases, is simply overhead. If it were a business (as our republican friends think it should be), it would be trimmed down and the redundant services between states and federal government would be eliminated (with the states taking priority as the Constitution implies). I'm not even a republican and I would support such changes wholeheartedly.

To send money to the federal government, only to have that money sent back to the states (with conditions attached), is wasteful, supports corruption at the federal level, and empowers special interests. It's time to start putting the federal government back in the hands of the citizens, don't you think?

Re:Supremacy Clause

[scot4875]

Unfortunate as your loss was, this is a prime example of why we shouldn't let people who have been emotionally compromised to make decisions.

The really sad thing is that after 9/11, pretty much the entire country was emotionally compromised. Look where that got us.

--Jeremy

Re:Supremacy Clause

[mea_culpa]

Comparing based on Rs and Ds alone at this stage is like deciding if deck chairs on the port or starbord side of the Titanic are better.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[realityimpaired]

I'm not even under the TSA's jurisdiction, and I have more liking for my own country's tax collectors than I do for the TSA. At least the tax collectors are performing a public service that actually serves the greater good. The TSA, on the other hand, is nothing more than security theater that has severely impacted my own life, in that I no longer feel comfortable travelling to the US or over US airspace. And I'm certain that I'm not the only one... so not only is the TSA a multi-billion dollar boondoggle that doesn't actually accomplish anything, it's actually taking money out of the US economy in the form of deterring international travellers from visiting. Pity. You used to have a really nice country, for a while, but there's plenty of other places in the world that will happily take my money, and won't humiliate me for the privilege.

Besides, the way the tax system is set up here, they always take money off at the source, and at the end of the year I get a refund for any overage they took off: unless you're self-employed, it's very rare that you end up owing the government money.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[interval1066]

Thomas Jefferson said that the people should trash the constitution every 50 years ago and re-write it. I believe he's spinning in his grave right now. He was a big believer in states rights. He was a Virginian, and his loyalty always lied with his state, the Fed was just a way to bring unity to the existing 13 to fight off British rule. The Fed has become a monstrous parody of the original vision of the founders. I agree that we can't be a great nation without a strong Fed, but what they have done is a mockery of the constitution, especially with the 2012 National Defence Authorisation Act. This act pretty much trashes the 4th Amendment. And the Fed Bank, nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention or rule that allows for the Federal Reserve Bank system. Next will there will be some "simple, pressing" need for posse comitatus? Perhaps the next occupy walll st. or some other national level demonstration? We've had every president since Carter conduct an undeclared war. That's by design. If you don't believe me refer back to Orwell.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[smellsofbikes]

Obama has not been friendly to the states on MMJ because he realizes that if he lets a state opt-out of one federal law, that opens the door for all of them. This would result in the healthcare bill being taken apart by red states.

The administration is saying they're enforcing anti-marijuana laws (that they previously claimed they wouldn't vigorously prosecute) because states with MMJ laws usually allow local supply/grow operations to provide the marijuana, and the probably obvious result is that people grow in MMJ states, then transport it across state lines to sell in places where it's still completely illegal and the profit margins are much higher. I'm not saying I personally know whether either the states-opting-out-is-dangerous or the transporting-across-state-lines scenario is true, just that a basic understanding of supply and demand tends to make the transporting-across-state-lines scenario very plausible. (And, as much as I hate to admit, pretty much solidly in the jurisdiction of Federal enforcement.)

Re:Supremacy Clause

[mea_culpa]

Not often discussed but I would think that any pilot that thought their cabin was about to be overrun would not hesitate to manipulate gravity as needed.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[sycodon]

I'm sure that many TSA Agents are on first name terms with many local law enforcement officials because they've been arrested so many times in the past.

TSA Agents are the same petty thieves and thugs that they were before, but now they are federalized.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[1s44c]

The TSA are wasting boatloads of money sexually assaulting and generally harassing everyone they can get their hand on. The reason whoever hijacked a number of planes at the same time is that they knew it was a one time thing, do it once and it will never work again.

If anyone of average intelligence with moderate funding wants to blow up some big landmark he won't use a hijacked airplane next time.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[Jawnn]

Most people think the Civil War was about slavery, but it wasn't...

Bullshit. Go peddle your bitter-loser, "War of Northern Agression", revisionist nonsense someplace else. The Civil War was "all about" slavery, or if you must, the pro-slavery states' "right" to legalize the ownership of human beings who look sufficiently different. Take out that issue and that embarrassing part of our nation's history would never have happened.

...but the downside of the Civil War was that the Federal government became far more powerful than the Founding Fathers ever intended, usurping the authority of state governments in direct violation of the 10th Amendment...

Yeah. The notion that someone should step up and end "an abhorrent, barbaric practice", when the states in Dixie continually refused to do so, is definitely a "downside". Seriously?

Re:Supremacy Clause

[coats]

That Assistant Attorney General -- and his co-conspirators -- who made that threat should have been arrested for extortion under color of office, for that is exactly what he did -- and not that as such his extortion is an offense properly under state jurisdiction. Since he traveled to Texas to make that threat, he was in fact available for such an arrest. And writs of extradition should have been filed for the rest of them.

Pour encourager les autres.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[Hatta]

"Pretty much the entire country" except for the "moon bat" left. It was obvious us from 9/12 that the overreaction to the attacks would be far worse for the country than the attacks themselves were. Of course when we spoke up we were smeared as unpatriotic. You probably don't remember that the lead up to Iraq war included some of the largest demonstrations in history. Of course we were mostly ignored by the "main stream" (aka hard line statist) media. Over a decade later, I have no problem saying "I told you so".

Re:Supremacy Clause

[thisnamestoolong]

Dude, Lincoln didn't even start pushing abolition very hard until the war had already begun. It is thought by many, in fact, that making the war about slavery was a PR move by the North to keep the British from siding with the South. While the outcome was obviously a good one, I think you give the North a bit too much credit -- racism was every bit as virulent and rampant as it was in the South, but they did not happen to have an economy that relied so heavily upon it.

Re:Supremacy Clause

[Mr 44]

In case anyone thinks parent is exagerating, this is what happened to the mayor of a Baltimore town:

http://reason.com/blog/2008/08/08/berwyn-heights-drug-raid-the-p [reason.com]