Originally Posted by
TSORon
LOL! A bit of perspective for you sir. ALL new laws operate under this condition, at least until such time as they are vetted by a court because of action taken by a citizen. So, while I can understand your statement, its not the earth (or TSA) shattering conclusion that you assume.
Sorry, but while you are right, you are also completely wrong on this point. Sure, you can indeed operate waiting for a court to tell you when you've crossed the line in how you carry out your statutory duties. However, when it comes to making sure that you are operating within the letter AND the spirit of the law, you can indeed adopt internal policy to ensure that your interepretation of your own law is conservative, not expansive.
This kind of internal analysis goes on frequently in Departments and Agencies that are well-managed. Then, of course, there is DHS.....
Originally Posted by
TSORon
More drivel IMO. I prefer facts, so please bring some next time.
Gee, sorry that I don't have internal transcripts of interagency meetings. I'll see what I can do about that.
Originally Posted by
TSORon
And this is exactly the type of challenge I spoke of above. Until this happens, the laws operate under the assumption that they are constitutional.
The difference is, of course, is that DOJ actually submits proposed law to a strict internal review, whereas your Department doesn't. For example, I'm currently reviewing a DHS POS that was never even submitted to their own lawyers for review. Imagine their surprise when I sent them a copy of a document they had never seen.
Originally Posted by
TSORon
ROFL. “strewardship of our civil liberties” (sic). Get real. I am not charged with the stewardship of anything but the safety of those who pass through our checkpoint. YOU are the steward of your own civil liberties, and if you don’t do a good job then you get what you deserve.
LOL, when all else fails, become the spelling police. Good for you Ron. I see you've really accomplished something in life!
