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'."
FUCK THE MAN! (Score:5, Funny)
Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Informative)
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:5, Interesting)
Several states have already decriminalized Marijuana possession [wikipedia.org], even without a medical prescription, actually.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
There is no doubt that much of CA's crop goes to supply the rest of the USA with good pot. I personally know of a farm that, on principle, doesn't sell in state. They aren't 'stinking law abiders'.
CA has basically stated that they will not spend a dime of state money stopping their number 1 cash crop. Local juries refuse to convict even in federal court.
The DEAs budget is not big enough to act as local cop for all of CA.
And there we are.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Informative)
Having grown up in Missouri and now living in California and having grown pot in both places.
Let me tell you there is no comparison in stress level.
Cops have checked on many of my recent associates. They look at the paperwork, count the plants and go away, often to the great annoyance of a busy body neighbor hiding behind their window shades. It's all about plant count, so we grow huge plants. I've got 30 cuttings under lights right now, usually 2-3 foot tall bushes when they go outdoors in 4 months or so. I'm keeping 6, just for personal smoke (there is no money in selling it locally and I don't grow enough to be worth shipping/smuggling.) Besides everybody I know back in MO that likes pot is growing indoors, year round and stressing.
In Missouri even if you could find a cop to trust to stay bribed, there is no department of graft that fairly spreads the bribe money around. There is always one more department, and you never know when you will run into a boyscout. Besides, cops are generally untrustworthy. I wouldn't hire one to clean up the dog shit.
In California your only worry is ripoffs, which you deal with by staying small and with big dogs and friendly, smoked out neighbors. Because as you are not (er, no longer) a criminal, armed to the teeth is also an option. An associate greeted some would be thieves with a 12 gauge, no charges, though the police did show up it was to take a description of the thieves (suburban wiggers, brown stains on pants and down pant legs.) He knew to say 'I felt my life was threatened'. No telling what would have happened if he had killed one.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
The Titanic on made one journey, going west. Obviously the port side was the sunny one.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Informative)
obama has not been as friendly to the states' wishes as he could have been, but you better believe that under R control, it was an all out war. currently, the war is mostly on-hold wrt MMJ.
just keep that in mind when you go to vote.
Keep this in mind, too:
Yet the DEA’s raids continued. If anything, the pace picked up. Americans for Safe Access counts at least 41 raids on growers or dispensaries between Obama’s inauguration and the Ogden memo, almost five a month on average. As of late May, there had been at least 106 raids since the Ogden memo, nearly six a month. In fact, medical marijuana raids have been more frequent under Obama than under Bush, when there were about 200 over eight years.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/12/bummer/singlepage [reason.com]
And this:
But over the past year, the Obama administration has quietly unleashed a multiagency crackdown on medical cannabis that goes far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush. The feds are busting growers who operate in full compliance with state laws, vowing to seize the property of anyone who dares to even rent to legal pot dispensaries, and threatening to imprison state employees responsible for regulating medical marijuana. With more than 100 raids on pot dispensaries during his first three years, Obama is now on pace to exceed Bush's record for medical-marijuana busts. "There's no question that Obama's the worst president on medical marijuana," says Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. "He's gone from first to worst."
The federal crackdown imperils the medical care of the estimated 730,000 patients nationwide – many of them seriously ill or dying – who rely on state-sanctioned marijuana recommended by their doctors. In addition, drug experts warn, the White House's war on law-abiding providers of medical marijuana will only drum up business for real criminals. "The administration is going after legal dispensaries and state and local authorities in ways that are going to push this stuff back underground again," says Ethan Nadelmann, director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Gov. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a former Republican senator who has urged the DEA to legalize medical marijuana, pulls no punches in describing the state of affairs produced by Obama's efforts to circumvent state law: "Utter chaos."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216 [rollingstone.com]
And this:
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS/AP) – Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state’s 15-year-old medical marijuana law.
In an escalation of the ongoing conflict between the U.S. government and the nation’s burgeoning medical marijuana industry, California’s s four U.S. attorneys sent letters Wednesday and Thursday notifying at least 16 pot shops or their landlords that they are violating federal drug laws, even though medical marijuana is legal in California. The attorneys are scheduled to announce their coordinated crackdown at a Friday news conference. ...
The move comes a little more than two months after the Obama administration toughened its stand on medical marijuana following a two-year period during which federal officials had indicated they would not move aggressively against dispensaries in compliance with laws in the 16 states where pot is legal for people with doctors’ recommendations.
The Department of Justice issued a policy memo to federal prosecutors in late June stating that marijuana dispensaries and licensed growers in states with
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Funny)
This is inconsistent with my "VOTE OBAMA" rhetoric. Please mod it down.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Informative)
> Several states have already decriminalized Marijuana possession
And because the supreme court says the "commerce clause" is a total carte-blanche that allows the federal government to do anything they like anywhere they like, you will still be arrested by a swat team who will break down your door, shoot your dog, point guns at your kids, and grind your face into the ground.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
... 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.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
The TSA are wasting boatloads of money sexually assaulting and generally harassing everyone they can get their hand on.
They are also spurring the economy! They have created a market for $250,000 scanner machines (without a safety study that would normally delay such devices). They have created a whole industry that now produces "TSA-approved" liquid bottles, TSA-approved luggage locks and laptop bags... And they nearly doubled prices of water/soda in the airport. So it's not just sexual assault.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (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)
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:5, Informative)
In order for Federal Law to trump state law, it has to be made in pursuance of its Constitutionally delegated powers. If Congress passes a law which they are not granted the power to do as part of their enumerated powers, then it does not trump state laws. That is why there is no federal drinking age, speed limit, etc. Those powers are not granted to it, so instead they simply bribe the states into passing laws to their intended effect by threatening to withhold transportation money.
Powers that are not enumerated to the Federal government belong to the states to begin with, and therefore cannot be trumped by Federal law. Laws concerning criminal activity such as assault, cannot be trumped by Congress. Therefore, if a state passes a law that classifies what the TSA is doing as assault, it definitely is within their power. That is why the feds have to resort to threatening to shut down their airspace if the law is passed rather than challenge the law in court.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." (Article VI, Clause 2)
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment)
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, Insightful)
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
Pour encourager les autres.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Informative)
Your reading of Civil War history is flat out incorrect.
* November 1860: Abraham Lincoln gets elected on a platform of stopping the expansion of slavery into territories that didn't already have it - i.e. When the federal government created states out of Arizona and New Mexico (which they weren't at the time), they'd be free states. His election campaign was centered around that argument, which was by far the biggest issue of the day, but he did not push for abolishing slavery in places where it already existed. This was significantly more moderate a position than what the notable abolitionists wanted.
* Nov 1860-Feb 1861: Seven states secede from the United States and form the Confederacy, interpreting Lincoln's platform of not expanding slavery as a slippery slope towards abolishing slavery in their states. The rhetoric used to convince state legislatures to secede is very explicitly about slavery.
* Mar 1861: Abraham Lincoln takes office. Notice that this happened after the Confederacy was already formed.
* Apr 1861: South Carolina forces open fire on Fort Sumter, which has been beseiged for 5 months prior.
There's no reasonable way to argue that the Confederacy did not start the war, and there's no reasonable way of reading the Confederacy's motives as being about anything other than slavery.
In addition, Lincoln was very very careful not to threaten slavery in states that already had it, because if he had, he would have lost the support of Maryland (leaving Washington DC surrounded by enemies), Kentucky, and possibly the newly-formed West Virginia, which were slave-holding states that did not secede.The Emancipation Proclamation (which created the stated goal of freeing the slaves) wasn't until the war had been going on for over 2 years, and the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery wasn't passed until after the war was over.
However, depending on when and where you received your education, it's quite possible that you got the version of the "War of Northern Aggression" in which Abe Lincoln threatened people's freedom and then sent William T Sherman to wreck everything the South had for no reason whatsoever. But that view of things is simply not supported by the documents we have.
The Disunion [nytimes.com] series over at the New York Times has all sorts of excellent primary documents and articles by historians looking at almost every angle of the war, which I highly recommend.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Informative)
You're a moron and apparently not a student of history. The ownership of slaves was such a very minor issue in the beginning that it was virtually of no consequence. Which is why slavery wasn't outlawed prior to or during the onset of the war. Slavery did not become an issue until the southern states began negotiations with France and England for assistance. Lincoln, knowing the view of slavery in western Europe, decided to make slavery a much larger issue so that western Europe would back out of its assistance to the south.
The major issue that kicked off the state's rights battle was actually trade. The southern states were selling cotton and tobacco to Europe, Britain specifically, because they were getting far better prices for their crops. The northern industrial complex was then being forced to purchased finished or partially finished goods from Europe which increased their manufacturing costs to nearly a prohibitive level. The nothern industrial states went before their brethren in congress and made complaints AGAINST capitalism and free enterprise. The fed issued "orders" to the southern states requiring them to sell their crops to U.S. based industries rather than European. The states said no and thus kicked off the the move to secede from the union, which, ultimately led to the fight for supremacy.
How about you actually learn history before you open your mouth in an intellectual debate.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
But is the TSA stuff law, or policy?
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: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:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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?
How would that help the states that don't have enough populous, and therefore income, to maintain their own roads without federal assistance. It's not the state's citizens own money being taken and given back -- it's also the money of citizens in other states. Lots of states receive more money from the feds than they pay in federal taxes.
Wyoming is a huge state with a small population, and roads that get damaged in the winter. It would be a net loss for Wyoming if they had to rely solely on their own abi
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Actually state constitutions do NOT override federal law. Federal Law can violate state prerogatives under the US constitutions 10th amendment but that's still a Federal constitutional amendment which trumps all other law.
See Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Re: (Score:3)
The Southern states tried the same thing in the 60s by closing public schools to prevent integration. It didn't work then either.
Re: (Score:3)
Little known fact: State constitutions override federal law.
Little known possibly because you just made it up and it hasn't had to time to percolate yet. No worries, I'm sure misinformation can travel faster than facts.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5155054279368574623&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr [google.com]
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2984439589202067076&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr [google.com]
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1635&context=faculty_scholarship [duke.edu]
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Funny)
Still, you have to admire their balls (but only if you work for the TSA).
Re: (Score:3)
Except when the Feds ignore federal law... Such as the Fourth Amendment. Also loosely noted in Article IV and more explicitly defined in the Articles of Confederation is freedom of travel, one of our natural rights. This was assumed to be such a basic right that it didn't need to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Shame for us, but doesn't really matter since the Feds ignore the Constitution anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
The federal government originally hadn't mandated that the TSA be in every airport. In fact, the author of the bill creating the TSA encouraged airports to opt-out of using the TSA [examiner.com]. Unfortunately, shortly after that article was written, the head of the TSA put a freeze on allowing any more opting-out from the airports. Even so, the Senate passed a bill a few weeks ago that would reinstate the practice [infowars.com]. So it seems somewhat inevitable that this is the direction things are heading now. I.e. that the crazy pen
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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, Funny)
and off to the supremes you go.
tsa: "stop! in the name ... of glove."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Until your Congress-critters start getting voted out for this, and the many other bullshit things they get away with, you won't see change. Push-back at the state level is helpful, but ultimately fairly useless. If she makes herself too much of a squeaky wheel, I'd imagine men in dark suits would be spotted around town shortly before she has a tragic accident.
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:4, Informative)
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?
For the record, the TSA does have some presence at local airports (although right now it's mostly only fences/locked gates and such so unauthorized people can't get to aircraft, although they appear to be very keen on increasing that presence.) However, if you have a private pilot certificate, you are not allowed to fly for pay. (You can split the cost of the flight, but no more than that.) You have to get a commercial certificate to fly for pay, and even then you can't fly people, on schedule, for pay: for that you need an airline transport certificate. So while there's not a law against you flying Bob for $50, there are regulations that will end up in you losing your flight certificate if you do so and get caught. Chartered commercial aircraft still have some wiggle room around this, which is why politicians and businessmen tend to like them so much, but there are efforts to bring them into the same general scope of regulation that commercial aircraft have. But generally, if an individual can afford the airplane, it's probably too small to have the sort of destructive possibilities that really get the TSA excited. Exceptions (John Travolta) exist, but are rare.
Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:4, Informative)
If I want to take my friend Bob up in my Cessna...
Correct -- as long as you are not providing certain types of flight instruction (they want to know about students working on an initial pilot's license and certain advanced ratings like, IIRC, multi-engine), TSA doesn't care about flying a friend around for the fun of it.
Now, what if Bob pays me $50 to take him from one place to another...What if I make a point of giving anybody who pays me $50 a ride in my airplane?
TSA might not become involved, but the FAA would (if they found out). You see, the FAA doesn't allow just anybody to charge fees to fly someone around. General Aviation -- what most people think of when they think "Cessna" or "Piper" -- comes in several flavors. When you first become a licensed pilot, you get a "private pilot" license, a "sport pilot" license or a "recreational pilot" license. There are a number of differences in what you can do with each of these licenses, but they are similar enough to group them together for this discussion. Basically, these licenses allow you to fly your airplane for fun, but not for profit...and the FAA is very, very serious and very, very conservative in how they approach the meaning of "fun but not profit." In a nutshell, if you were going on a flight and you decided to invite a friend, you are PROBABLY (but not certainly) okay. However, if your friend comes to you with a request to go flying...well, don't let the FAA find out (they have busted pilots for receiving no more compensation than logging the flight time!). Even with a "commercial pilot" license (what I have) or an "airline transport pilot" ("ATP") license, unless you jump through a lot more hoops, THE EXACT SAME RESTRICTIONS APPLY . "General Aviation" is covered under Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. If you are flying under Part 91, you can't carry passengers or cargo for hire although you can provide flight instruction...if you also hold a flight instructor certificate. I have known of instructors providing "flight instruction" to scenic locations, but you're seriously bending the regs if you try that, so be careful. If you want to legally carry passengers or cargo, you need to become licensed as an air taxi operator (Part 135) or a scheduled airline (Part 141). That's far, far easier said than done, and at that point, TSA will become involved.
What if I have a bigger airplane...
Unlike what your wife or girlfriend may have told you, size doesn't matter, at least not yet ;) A few years ago, TSA tried to mandate passenger screening for all aircraft weighing over 12,500 lbs. (what the FAA calls a "large" airplane). There was enough public outrage, notably from the National Business Aviation Association and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, that they withdrew that proposal. They've made some noise about revisiting that topic again, but so far, that's all it has been -- just noise.
HTH!
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever seen the letter that declares that you own an "arsenal" and must legally respond as such? It is pretty cool. You know when you own a few too many guns when you receive that one.
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Informative)
The terrorists did not put these practices in place... our government did.
Re: (Score:3)
The terrorists did not put these practices in place... our government did.
Let's just say it was a joint effort, and mutually beneficial.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:4, Funny)
America is done. It's all a downhill slide now.
Really, the best thing would be a movement to amend the Constitution to allow for the peaceful secession of states.
I live in Cascadia -- we'd be one awesome country if we could be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement) [wikipedia.org]
Re:Finally (Score:4, Informative)
Right. Until the Federated Republic of California decided to invade.
Who gets to keep the guns? (And the bombers and the Navy and this and that). You folks haven't really thought this out. This pops up in Alaska all the time (Sarah Palin's husband is big on this). Alaska's National Guard has some light infantry and a few old fighters. I think the biggest weapon that the Alaska State Troopers have is a 50 caliber machine gun and a couple of 300 pound officers.
Russia waltzes in. Then what happens?
So, you make 'defensive pacts' with the big guys with the guns. You have to pay for that right. That's a treaty or similar.
Now, just look at how well the United States has done with treaties (ask your average Native American).
Dream on, brother.
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.
...makes you wonder... (Score:3)
...if only there were a way for reality to affect our politicians in other ways.... shoddy health insurance, loan scandals, eroding wages for skilled work, being on the wrong end of globalization.... etc. Now we can see true motivation.
Oh yes... When it is US its OK, but THEM... (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
No Fly Zone (Score:3)
I'd love to see the states start calling the Federal Bluff. If the states revolt in unison against over reaching Federal Intrusions, the Feds will have no choice but to back off.
The problem is we have a bunch of pussified representatives.
Re:No Fly Zone (Score:5, Informative)
Then the feds would just shut down the golden picnic hamper. States would go hungry.
Much of Federal legislation (education / environment, not so sure about the TSA in particular) isn't directly forcing states to do one thing or another. It's just if you don't want to play in their sandbox, you don't get to play with the fun toys.
The old golden rule "He who has the gold, rules".
Re:No Fly Zone (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Texas a no-fly zone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Texas a no-fly zone? (Score:5, Funny)
The Rhode Island State Airlines wouldn't even be able to taxi to the end of the runway.
How is this going to work?
Why does it take a representative to be affected.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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.
No fly zone? (Score:3)
That's great! The last time I visited Texas, the flies were terrible!
Need TSA in Congress & Sentate & White Hou (Score:4, Informative)
Let's make all of congress, the senate, and of course, the President and cronies, have to go thru a TSA scanner and pat down every time they want to enter the senate, or the white house, or congress. Let's do this for a month, then lets have a revote on this stuff.
My guess is we'd get rid of all the scanners and pat downs.
After all, the people who make the laws are the one rarely affected by the laws they are making, unless it's something to benefit them.
This rings hollow (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
That's why I don't think that Perry or Dewhurst have any guts- or are even remotely the conservatives that they purport to be; or we'd have HAD that face off.
Yes (Score:3)
The terrorists have already won.
TSA procedures are largely symbolic (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The passengers who fought back save us (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:3)
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: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: (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: (Score:3)
No, North and South Dakota finally settled their differences and re-united.
Re: (Score:3)
there is also a part of the swearing in process of federal legislators where they declare " fuck that shit"
Re: (Score:3)