Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Unconstitutional TSA Bill Could Shut Down Texas’ Airports

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 03:00 PM
Original message
Unconstitutional TSA Bill Could Shut Down Texas’ Airports
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/25/texas-tsa/

The Texas state legislature is considering an awesomely unconstitutional bill which would empower state law enforcement to arrest TSA security screeners and jail them for up to a full year. While the bill has no chance of surviving constitutional scrutiny, the Department of Justice warned Texas’ lawmakers today that it could force the TSA to shut down flights into Texas airports:

This office, as well as the Southern, Northern, and Eastern District of Texas United States Attorneys, would like to advise you of the significant legal and practical problems that will be created if the bill becomes law. As you are no doubt aware, the bill makes it a crime for a federal transportation official (“TSO”) to perform the security screening that he or she is authorized and required by federal law to perform. . . . The practical import of the bill is that it would threaten criminal prosecution of Transportation Security Administration personnel who carry out the security procedures required under federal statutes and TSA regulations passed to implement those statutes. Those officials cannot be put to the choice of risking criminal prosecution or carrying out their federal duties. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Texas has no authority to regulate federal agents and employees in the performance of their federal duties or to pass a statute that conflicts with federal law.

If HR 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute. Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.


There is no question that the U.S. Attorneys are correct here. Indeed, the Supreme Court established as early as 1819 that state laws never have the power to “destroy” something that federal law has created — such as TSA baggage screenings.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. because it runs up against our awesomely unconstitutional loss of 4th Amendment protection!?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Face it...
you have little understanding how the law works.

The article is correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lildreamer316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I can't believe you think the 4th Amendment is now obsolete.
Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Show me where I said any such thing.
Nice strawman, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Many here applaud that obsolescence when the coup de grace happens under "our" watch
Edited on Thu May-26-11 12:15 AM by villager
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Do you have the constitutional right to fly?
You agree to abide by the rules set forth by the FAA and the TSA when you purchase a ticket.

Don't like the rules?

Buy a bus or train ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LadyHawkAZ Donating Member (800 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. The right to travel is pretty well established in law
they are working on putting similar TSA searches in trains, what next? You have the right to travel only if you walk?

Placing restrictions on a constitutional right that make the right impossible or unreasonably difficult to exercise is in itself unconstitutional. That's why so many anti-abortion laws get struck down. With luck, the TSA intrusive searches will be the next to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. You don't have a constitutional right to ignore...
FAA regulations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LadyHawkAZ Donating Member (800 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. If they violate the constitution
I most certainly do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. They don't violate the Constitution...
you should educate yourself about case law re: security checkpoints.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
36. TSA agents are not violating the Constitution. I for one want them to start
putting protesters at gate in handcuffs. I have no patience with the fools as I am working to get from one place to another fast and in one piece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
35. You don't have a constitutional right to fly. If you don't want to be screened, drive your
car. But guess? Some states are going to screen you and your car for agricultural products before your are allowed to drive in their territory. Life is not a free ride.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. There is absolutely nothing to stop TSA from doing the
Edited on Thu May-26-11 01:02 AM by LisaL
exact same things on buses and trains. I am sure if TSA really wanted to it could also start stopping and searching you as you are driving in your car. After all, TSA stands for Transportation Security Administration, not Air Travel Security Administration. So WTF are you going to do then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. "I am sure if TSA really wanted to it could also start stopping and searching you as you are...
driving in your car"

I'm certain if you keep yhrashing about, you'll eventually get something right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. Of course you have the right to fly.
Why are people on the left constantly raising this rightwing meme in an effort to defend this? When these machines were kept out of airports successfully under Bush, the exact same argument was made, and debunked over and over again.

We have the right to travel, and that includes flying, unmolested by the government unless we commit or are a suspect in a crime.

Bush's policies changed the rules and made every US citizen a suspect in order to impose his anti-Constitutional laws. This is what you are defending. No one is a suspect in this country without probable cause. And being frightened does not translate into 'probable cause'.

No wonder countries lose their rights so easily. So many are willing to just give them up without a whimper. Republicans, when their guy is in the WH and Democrats when it's their guy.

What's hillarious about this is how under Bush this was a huge issue for the left and you could not find anyone willing to defend the use of these machines and the idea that all Americans are suspects in crimes yet to be committed. The FFs would roll over in their graves.

'Anyone who would give up their freedom for a little security, deserves neither freedom nor security'! Paraphrased, but so true, and with all the freedoms we've given up, apparently it was all for nothing, but we are still not secure and need to give up even more! :eyes:

When will we be safe?? How many many more rights will it take before we are safe?

Unrec'd this article as Texas and every other state now doing so are to be commended for attempting to restore our constitutional rights. It was a completely bi-partisan bill and it's disgraceful to see the left being so blatantly hypocritical. I argued with rightwingers over this very topic for years. I haven't changed my mind just because now Democrats are doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. You don't have the right to fly...
Edited on Thu May-26-11 02:13 PM by SDuderstadt
in violation of FAA regulations, Sabrina.

I hope you're not going to suggest that I am either a RWer or that I am embracing a RW meme. I am simply more of a big picture thinker than you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Flying is not in violation of any regulations. Unless you
you are a criminal or there is probably cause to suspect you of a crime. Can't grasp that, can you?

Let the Fed. Gov. show cause as to why every traveler from babies to disabled seniors in the US is a suspect in a crime, yet to be committed and are treated like criminals when they exercise their rights under the US Constitution.

They backed off doing that not so long ago. But sooner or later they will have to do it as more and more American Citizens challenger their claims.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Sabrina....
Edited on Thu May-26-11 07:10 PM by SDuderstadt
I make an argument and you respond to a totally different argument that apparently only you are having. The federal government doesn't have to show cause for anything about the security checkpoints. Do you even understand what the term "show cause" means? Congress enacts legislation that authorizes the FAA to promulgate regulations which the TSA is responsible for enforcing. Securoty checkpoints are perfectly legal, need no warrant nor probable cause and have been upheld repeatedly.

You can make all the simplistic, irrelevant arguments you want. If you think you have a case, file it in the appropriate federal court and roll the dice. Good luck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I don't have to, cases are already filed, several as a matter of fact.
As for the constitutionality of checkpoints, that was challenged already and as always, once something is challenged, the conventional wisdom often gets shot down. they were found to be not constitutional in the state where they were challenged.

I am not the one making these 'irrelevant' arguments, expert civil rights attorneys are. These regulations have only been in effect for a few months. I can't think of any other set of rules that have met with so much resistance so soon. But then, the left has been fighting them for over six years, successfully, until the government took advantage of the ridiculous fear of the underwear bomber, someone who should have been stopped since he was already on a watch list. Not to mention his father had alerted the authorities to his intentions.

He had no passport, but was escorted onto the plane by someone who has refused to be identified. You would almost think someone wanted a failed attempt to scare the people into buying into the notion that they needed Chertoff's machines.

As more people are affected by this, even more will be filing lawsuits and doing whatever they have to to end these draconian for-profit useless 'security measures'. We aren't all as easily fooled or scared as you appear to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. As to your claim about the constitutionality of...
Edited on Thu May-26-11 08:39 PM by SDuderstadt
checkpoints, please cite the case. If it's the same one you cited before, it was a totally different issue that has no bearing on the TSA.

As far as the underwear bomber, you realize that it happened in a foreign country, right? More grasping for straws on your part.

I am neither "fooled nor scared". Unlike you, I understand the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. self-delete
Edited on Thu May-26-11 11:09 PM by SDuderstadt
Posted in wrong place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #19
37. You don't have a right to fly. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
27. TSA wants to expand to train & bus stations, "soft targets"
Edited on Thu May-26-11 08:42 PM by GoneOffShore
such as shopping malls.

They also want to get their creepy claws into general aviation.

Do you own a boat? Look for TSA goons at a marina near you soon.

And if you drive a car? Well, you can be stopped by CBP anywhere within 100 miles of an international border crossing, which they define as being within 100 miles of an international airport.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. And, of course...
you have a verifiable source for.this, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Yo, Sunshine - They've shown up at 30th Street Station in Philly on
Edited on Thu May-26-11 09:14 PM by GoneOffShore
numerous occasions.

Nappy and Pissy have stated that they want to expand the "mission" of the TSA to cover "soft targets".

And they have had their eyes on "General Aviation" since the inception of the agency.

From the TSA website

The Large Aircraft Security Program (LASP) regulation would require all U.S. operators of aircraft exceeding 12,500 pounds maximum take-off weight to implement security programs that would be subject to compliance audits by TSA. The proposed regulation would also require operators to verify that passengers are not on the No Fly and/or Selectee portions of the federal government's consolidated terrorist watch list.


Why do you defend the TSA so vehemently?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Do you have a source for.your initial claim or...
not, dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Here's a link to Nappy's statement made back in 2010.
Edited on Fri May-27-11 06:51 PM by GoneOffShore
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/26/homeland-security-coming-hotels-malls/

So, Sonny boy Slim, why do you defend the TSA so vehemently? Are you a TSC (transportation security clerk) or have a relative in that particular workfare program?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #34
44. Dude...
she's talking about security cameras and training the facilities' own staff. Of course, you twist her words to make it appear she said something she didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
41. ....
"What no one seemed to notice was the ever widening gap between the government and the people. And it became always wider the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about and kept us so busy with continuous changes and "crises" and so fascinated by the machinations of the "national enemies," without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us.

Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, "regretted," that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these "little measures" must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. Each act is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even talk, alone, you don't want to "go out of your way to make trouble." But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes.

That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves, when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father could never have imagined."

~Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LadyHawkAZ Donating Member (800 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. I would hope that would be the argument
that Texas uses if it does get taken to court- that they are enforcing the Fourth Amendment protections that every citizen is entitled to. Last time I looked, the Constitution overrides all other laws. In theory, anyways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. You should read the Supremacy Clause of...
the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. SHUT EM DOWN!!!!!!!! nt
Edited on Wed May-25-11 03:02 PM by Drale
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
38. I agree. If Texas legislators violate the law, shut their state's fing
airports down. Time has come to draw a line with wingnuts, left or right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. Go for it Texas!!!
One way to keep Bush and Perry in Texas if all flights going out of Texas are denied landing rights in other states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Pretty sure private aircraft are exempt anyway
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
43. Not if the TSA has it's way. They've got their eyes on GA(General Aviation).
The grope will be coming to private pilots soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
12. I like that bill. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
20. I find myself in the peculiar position of applauding something Texas lawmakers are doing...
"awesomely unconstitutional"? Unless the article is referring to the 'ehanced patdowns' which are blatantly unconstitutional, I think the author of this article is grinding the wrong axe...

The legislation is not looking to "destroy" the tsa baggage screenings, they are looking to "define" what is acceptable physical contact used in their state, as they are perfect able to do. There is no need for any govt agent to stick their fingers in my crotch, or that of my wife under ANY circumstances unless I am being processed after having been arrested for a crime.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Dude...
You might want to research the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

This is a complicated, yet straightforward, legal issue, in which black-and-white laymen's interpretations of the 4th Amendment don't mean very much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #21
39. 100% agree. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
40. This bill didn't pass. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack_DeLeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
42. Its a shame the law didnt pass...
I would have like to have the laws the regulations TSA operates under be reviewed in courte.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
47. And TSA IS Constitutional??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Actually yes. It is a mommy device mostly
But yes...it is. The doctrine went all the way to the USSC when metal detectors ( challenged under. Fourth amendment ) were first put in place.

I have many issues with how they do it. Mostly it's security theater, but to be really effective it costs way too much money in canine noses and well trained screeners, not in backscatter devices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC