State Legislatures Attempt To Limit TSA Searches 601
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'."
Texas a no-fly zone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
You might actually be wrong, there are limited cases where the states can manage this. Now with something like medical weed you have an outright conflict. There are cases where states are allowed to do more, for example in Oregon their definition of free speech is much wider and more inclusive than the federal definition.
The TSA may very well decide to comply with local laws in those States, it's simply not worth the fight. At any rate, some sort of balance must be struck in this case, because I'm beginning to think people like the IRS more than the TSA.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:4, Interesting)
The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution states that, when there is a conflict, Federal law always trumps State law.
The federal government doesn't own the airports or airlines. "The State of Texas hereby withdraws all licensing, support, and allowances for any airport or airline within its borders."
So while yes, the fed may be able to say the TSA must exist in all airports, the state can say no airports may exist within its borders. If the fed really wants to push this, the state can make a constitutional amendment. Little known fact: State constitutions override federal law. Only treaties and the like can go above that then. So there are ways for states to fight back against unwanted federal interference if the will of the people is strong enough.
Frankly, I'd love to see Texas go toe to toe with the TSA on this issue. Whether it passed or failed, it would generate a ton of negative publicity for the feds and put them on the defensive for a long time.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:2, Interesting)
In addition to the supremacy clause, even the most ardent states'-rightist would agree that this is "regulation of interstate commerce", so this definitely falls within the federal government's responsibility, not the states'.
Re:Why does it take a representative to be affecte (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Pretty much the same reason you get the crosswalk light installed only after some kid or old lady gets killed. People, including legislators, do what's easiest for them. When it's easier to do nothing, do nothing. When doing nothing gets to be more trouble than doing something, only then you do something.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
Several states have already decriminalized Marijuana possession [wikipedia.org], even without a medical prescription, actually.
Re:States can't legislate to the federal governmen (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually it is very arguable that in this day and age where families are routinely split across the country and routinely make regular flights, that this would end up violating the freedom of movement stipulations of the constitution. It is not reasonable to tell someone in New York that they are perfectly free to drive to California, but not fly.
So now you have the constitution in conflict with itself, and off to the supremes you go.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
Texas no fly zone.. would be national (Score:5, Interesting)
Because Texas has two very important hubs, DFW and IAH. Plus a very large number of southwest flights pass through Texas. When DFW/IAH gets shutdown the ripples will be national, good luck finding a flight anywhere. The texas leg should totally call their bluff, lets see what happens when united can't fly through IAH, and American can't fly through DFW. Plus chopping the middle out of southwest won't be pretty either.
Loosing the 2,3 and 4th largest airlines in the US will be a bigger problem for TSA, than any terrorist attack.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
Then it just becomes a circular pissing contest: "The federal government withdraws all funding for interstate highways". Look at why the drinking age is 21 in every state. It's not because there is a federal law, it's because the feds strong armed them with "Well if it's not 21 the roads aren't safe, and if the roads aren't safe we're not going to fund them."
Re:Reality starting to set in (Score:4, Interesting)
just a matter of time until we either return to a civilized system
You mean like in the 1950's when no one was searched or x-rayed at all? After all, no one would be stupid to blow up the plane they are on, right? I don't know why people have this obsession with "not dying" - we are all going to die sooner or later, be it disease or a car crash or a plane crash or yes, even the remote chance of a terrorist plot. But terrorism only works because people allow themselves the live in fear. And while it can be argued that screening helps reduce the chance of terrorism on an airplane - it does not eliminate it as has been proven with the shoe/underwear bombers both of whom failed NO THANKS to the security screeners who let them on the planes.
Honestly I would prever less intrusion into my private life and my private parts, and take my chances. Better to live one day as a lion than 1,000 years as a sheep.
Re:States can't legislate to the federal governmen (Score:3, Interesting)
States can make it really uncomfortable for the Fed to actually enforce their policy.
Look at what's happened in Arizona; whether or not you agree with the policies, they are putting the federal government on the defensive about its own policies.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Perhaps if read what I said, you'd realize I don't live in Cascadia, I just wish I did. Where I do live, is in an country with an odious foreign policy and a government that is looking more and more like a fascist state (in the classical sense, not the colloquial). Evidence:
1) Extreme nationalism and the notion we can do anything, anywhere, anytime and if anyone objects, they're a terrorist.
2) Racism, i.e., the Drug War. Check out the book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow [wikipedia.org]
3) Government by and for the benefit of massive corporate interests.
4) Severe and accelerating erosion of privacy and liberty -- what can you say when even Democrats believe the president can kill or imprison any American without trial or even acknowledgement that such a thing happened.
The fact is, America is dead right now, and all that is left is a bit of the inertia of our former self. 20 or 30 years down the line, and we'll be like any other repressive regime you care to name.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
I want to know: at what point do TSA regulations apply?
Suppose I own an airplane. If I want to take my friend Bob up in my Cessna, I doubt the TSA is going to want to look up his butt or make him take his shoes off. Hell, I imagine I don't even have to let them know -- I just file a flight plan with my local airport and go.
Now, what if Bob pays me $50 to take him from one place to another. Then does the TSA have to look up his butt?
What if I make a point of giving anybody who pays me $50 a ride in my airplane?
What if I have a bigger airplane and carry people around ten at the time?
When do they start insisting on me following their rules?
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
But the fact is the federal government WILL threaten the states and will get their way. They will declare a no-fly zone over Texas for the TSA. They will withhold highway money to get federal speed limits. They even made a farmer burn his crops that he grew for his own family's use because: if he HADN'T grown it he would have had to buy it and that would affect crop prices across state lines and therefore it falls under the inter-state commerce clause which is federal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
Difference between law and policy. (Score:5, Interesting)
What the state representative is reacting to is not law, but policy. The use of "nude-o-scopes" and invasive pat-downs are not codified in federal law, so restricting their use is fair game. The supremacy clause arguably applies only to laws, not regulations or policies enacted outside of the law.
The TSA screeners aren't law enforcement officers. They cannot themselves arrest you or prevent you from passing through security without the aid of a local or state police officer. If the state and locality decide not to respond to an individual breaching security -- well, the breach happens. A state could simply make a rule preventing police officers from arresting people that refuse certain types of screening and permitting them to, essentially, bypass security.
States also don't have to their waive public safety laws (such as those pertaining to radiation exposure and operator requirements for such devices), nor sexual battery laws (TSA screeners are not law enforcement officers, and even if they were, the touching of breasts/genitals would only be permitted by court order or with reasonable cause). Technically speaking, my state would be well within its rights to enforce it's current laws on operation of X-ray emitting equipment if it is shown that the operator is not a licensed radiologist, if the use of the device is not for a medical purpose, and if the devices are not inspected and tested on the required schedule. That'd be a $25 fine per person screened, and perhaps a couple of weeks in prison for the operator.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
That will not happen again - there's simply no chance of it unless there's a serious flaw in the plane's avionics that allow a remote takeover. Between armored cockpits and passenger awareness (a successful hijacking is assumed to mean death and destruction rather than an unplanned vacation in the tropics), the worst that could happen is someone sneaking a bomb on the plane and detonating it. While by no means good, it has limited impact and the same thing could be achieved in any number of ways much more easily. And let's face it - anyone could do far more human damage much more easily by acting as a suicide bomber in a security line (you know, before the checkpoint). We don't need the TSA to do that.
Condolences for your loss, but this works out to a numbers game. There are ten times the number of driving-related deaths PER YEAR than the number of people killed in domestic terror attacks*, and you can be damn sure that drunk driving could be nearly eliminated with TSA's budget. Hell, use the money to sponsor free cab rides.
In fact, the main reason I hate the IRS is because my tax dollars are going to fund operations like the TSA. I have no problem with paying taxes, provided they're used responsibly and productively. That's simply not the case here.
* Ignoring the war on terror - those deaths, while also unfortunate, are the result of an overzealous and incompetent government
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, as someone who lost someone on 9/11, I disagree with your generalization that the TSA isn't viewed as having a purpose. Their skill and efficacy may be in question, but their purpose is to keep idiots from using our airlines as missiles again.
I do not intend any offense to you AC, but IMHO, your contention that we need TSA in order "to keep idiots from using our airlines as missiles again" is an incredibly offensive insult to the crew and passengers of Flight-93. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93)
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:4, Interesting)
The FBI and DEA do care about state laws (Score:3, Interesting)
The FBI and DEA *do* very much care about state laws.
Federal Law Enforcement Agencies (FBI & DEA) are small with about 14k and 5k agents respectively. Without help from local law enforcement, they can do nothing but make the occasional token raids for show. They are small agencies with tiny budgets, staffed by non-exceptional government employees. These agencies are hard to under-estimate. The DEA could get 100x more agents and they still would have no hope of stopping the 45 Million american pot smokers.
--AC
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:3, Interesting)
IMO, people who insist the Civil War was "all about slavery" are probably the same ones who think the "war on terror" is justified, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary. The worst part? If you try to enlighten them, they plug their ears and start screaming "RACIST!" at you.
So much for ignorance being bliss...
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
I was wrong, and you win. Back then I was right-wing. Shoot, I was a pacifist until 9/11, and yet on that day I was crying for blood. You were right. I said horrible things about you guys, and I was wrong to do that, and for that I apologize. Worse, I am guilty of calling for actions that led to the death of many innocents, as well as the accumulation of power to people who are now abusing it.
I appreciate the fact that you were speaking for truth back then, and I hope that you continue to do so for many years to come.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
The DEA is going after dealers and distributors, not someone carrying a joint
That's what they'd like you to believe, but I was shown a few years ago that it's bullshit. Some lady friends of mine worked for slumlords cleaning houses for a living, and I gave them a ride to collect their pay.
They got in the car and six large, armed men jumped out and surrounded us, frisked us, and searched the car. Two were local cops, two were FBI, and one was DEA -- it was printed on their clothing, just like on TV. The DEA guy wore a ski mask (in July in Illinois).
It turned out that the house they went to was rented by a drug dealer. The FBI, DEA, and local cops were laying in wait to bust people who had just bought dope from the dealer. Note they could have easily busted the dealer himself.
Of course, they let us go since there weren't any drugs, but my lack of 4th amendment protection against my car and person being searched and the fact that they were after users rather than dealers pisses me off to this day.