Originally Posted by
RichardKenner
There are two problems with the above definition:
(1) What constitutes the TSO's "assigned duties" are in a document that we're not permitted to see. Since we can't know what those duties are, there's no way to know whether an action that we may take will "delay, impede or distract" such person from their duties.
(2) It doesn't take into account that there are constitutionally protected activities (or those permitted by other laws, such as the ADA) which are still legal even if they "delay, impede or distract" a TSO. For example, a person who presents themselves at the checkpoint with medical items are going to "delay" a TSO, but they are permitted to do so by the ADA.
Can you try again?
^^^^^^^
now multiply this kind of mental confusion times 60,000 screeners, many of whom are probably far less mentally acute than the person who made this statement. What are the odds that ANYTHING these people don't like will end up being "interference".
To be valid, laws must be "promulgated", correct?