reft

Covered already? Of course, since the 4th amendment is 'optional' and doesn't cover air travel, because alternative means are available, Article I, Section 6 may likewise be optional. [/yea-right]

If operational, it only covers to-from Congressional Sessions, etc., so the congresscritter in question may be looking for privileges for their leisure travel.

Flaflyer

Sadly you have hit the nail on the head. Not only do they live in the world that does not extend beyond Idol and DWTS, but the average American is a robotic Consumer Drone who simply cannot be seen in public without the latest version of the IPhone and who will spend far more time picking out the color of their new IPhone than they will spend deciding who to vote for in the next election. Hence here we are in 2011.

As for this Rep wanting to be a more equal animal:

east_of_the_sun

And from that article comes a bit of advice for our ELECTED officials :"Lead from the front. Do the same screening as the rest of us. Do it each time you board a flight. That's what America is all about."

GUWonder

That privileges them from arrest, not from bureaucratic hassles applicable to the currently not-arrested.

Leisure travel, international "fact-finding" trips and also fund-raising travel in areas beyond the area of their elected constituency would not fall under Constitutionally-privileged travel in any form.

n4zhg

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/01/0...t-the-airport/

Loren Pechtel

1,000,000x yes.

This guy has proved he doesn't represent the people. He should be summarily tossed out of office for it.

RATM

So his logic is that they should get a pass because of what happened to a fellow congressperson?

Well, in the words of Rep. Chaffetz, "We aren't going to secure planes by looking at 9 year old girls naked"

A 9 year old girl died in this same attack. Can we exempt them from security? How about all the other demographics that were killed or wounded? Do those demographics not feel uneasy at airports?

FlyingUnderTheRadar

“I really believe that that is the place where we feel the most ill at ease, is going through airports,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.)

Why because you might actually have to talk to the people whom you represent and are tried of the excrement coming from legislative branch?

reft

Looking at the last phrase, "..., they shall not be questioned in any other Place. " -- does that apply to "Did you pack your bags?" Unmentioned there is a 'who' here, as to who would be doing the questioning (and I've not bothered to look up case law).

For the arrest clause, does that mean if I'm a congresscritter, I can blow off the smurf, provided it's not one of the listed offenses (Felony, disturbing the peace, etc.) Since all the TSA 'crimes' are civil, they aren't felonies until a certain line is crossed. Like that bag of pot in certain states, or that legal-but-arbitrary-prohibited 'artfully concealed' item.

There are many parts of the Constitution using comma's in strange places that may have been 'normal' for 18th century language that drive the 20th and now 21st century arguments about what it all means. That's not even going down the hole of 'intent' here.

Nothwithstanding all the above, except for certain very narrowly defined cases, Congress should not be exempt from the laws that effect the rest of us. They should be felt up and have naked images of them seen by others, if those are the procedures that the rest of citizenry has to go through. If they are traveling with armed escort, and the armed escort is eligible for security bypass, it shouldn't mean the rest of the travel party should be. Look at the politician in Southern Asia assassinated by their own security guard.

divemistressofthedark

I was thinking about this over dinner. I have to say I think it's not that people don't care, it's just that they don't see any clear and direct way to affect any change.

* Both political parties are owned by corporations

* We have an elected rep for some crazy number like every 600,000 people in this country...which means we really are blips on the screen to our electeds

* If you run for office yourself you have to give up every principle you ever held dear for fear of offending said corporations and other donors...good luck getting elected if you don't raise huge sums of money, given what TV and newspapers charge for advertising, etc.

* Many political campaigns aren't about real issues, just "hot button" topics, which is a real turnoff for a lot of people

* Media is really complicit in getting people stirred up over nonissues (welfare mothers with IPhones, rather than the fact the top 20% of the population now controls 90% of the wealth, or some obscene number...this country is being turned into a banana republic and nobody's even talking about it.)

Disclaimer: I used to be a lot more involved in retail political campaigning than I am now. I finally just gave up, thanks to having my interests utterly thrown under the bus and having witnessed a fair amount of corruption on the part of the good old boys who run my state.

A lot of times I personally have to tune out, because I'm subject to such a barrage of updates on horrible situations that I can't do anything about. If I really focused on how bad things are for poor people, or the environment, or whatever, I'd be so depressed I couldn't get out of bed in the morning.

Which is NOT to say that I think doing nothing at all is a reasonable alternative, mind you...

Just some $.02.

RATM

Interestingly enough, the father of the 9 year-old girl that was killed linked his reaction to this with the airport situation. Basically, he doesn't think his daughter's tragedy should be used to erode constitutional rights the way people have used 9/11 to erode our rights in the air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj47lB1a-0Y

He has an incredibly level headed reaction to this just days after his daughter was killed. Much respect to this man.

gsoltso

As previously mentioned, I have no information to give, and if I did, I still wouldn't talk about it.

I am not ashamed of my job, or of performing it.

It would not be at the stake, but I would be burned for discussing SSI and specific passenger information and rightly so.

GUWonder

What a shame that, according to clips of an interview given by the Congressman to Fox, this Congressman actually does seem to have tried to link the assassination attempt upon a Congressional rep with how Congresspersons ought not to be screened by the TSA. Is he worried that the TSA is so wacko that TSA employees will try to do some more wacko things to him too? Then he should push against the TSA on behalf of all of America's passengers -- and not just Congresspersons -- who risk having their sex organs handled by the TSA.

Do you think there is any good reason for the TSA to know the details about passengers' sex organs -- including the size and shape of the sex organs -- whether or not an elected official? Talking about such sex organs or not isn't going to change the situation of the TSA employees getting the information they get whether or not the TSA employee have it to give or not.

Then you fancy it?

The government is not in the habit of fancying that such happens to its own employees domestically. Burning the bodies of foreigners is another matter.

^^

N1120A

Please send this to OMNI

Caradoc

If my job involved lying to the public about the reasons for demanding to see them naked or groping them, I'd be ashamed of it. Very ashamed.

In fact, if my job description suddenly changed one day to include those behaviors, they'd probably fire me immediately when I refused to perform those particular actions.

The simple fact that the TSA has found so many people who're not only willing but eager to do so speaks volumes - and not in a good way.