Colorado Law to require full disclosure

Old Jan 27, 11, 8:07 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FLL - Nice and Warm
Programs: TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 1,025
Colorado Law to require full disclosure

The bill requires the following notice to be posted at the point of
entry into any security area prior to the use of a security scanning system
in any public facility in the state:
....
....
The image generated by the security scanning system being
used;
Any privacy or modesty policies or issues related to the
security scanning system being used;
....
....
Any consequences a person could face for refusing to be
scanned by the security scanning system being used or for
refusing alternative security measures required prior to
entering the public facility
This can only be good!

INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, A GOVERNMENT BUILDING, A COURTHOUSE, AN AIRPORT, OR A SCHOOL, COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY, OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION.
http://www.statebillinfo.com/bills/bills/11/055_01.pdf
Wimpie is offline  
Old Jan 27, 11, 8:11 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denton County, TX
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 737
Haven't read it yet but my guess is that like most of the other bills that are coming out, is probably not enough.

Do something and look like a hero right?

No - I don't want disclosure. I want it to stop.
TXagogo is offline  
Old Jan 27, 11, 8:15 pm
  #3  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 89,334
Originally Posted by TXagogo View Post
Haven't read it yet but my guess is that like most of the other bills that are coming out, is probably not enough.

Do something and look like a hero right?

No - I don't want disclosure. I want it to stop.
Indeed. Mere disclosure and more of the following kind of approaches:

Legislation that would limit full-body imaging to secondary searches passed the U.S. House of Representatives, but has not passed the Senate. But even the co-sponsor of the amendment, Representative Jason Chaffetz, said: "I support the machines being widely deployed."
isn't doing anything useful.

[Quote above is taken from here http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BT2QZ20091230 ]
GUWonder is online now  
Old Jan 27, 11, 8:28 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denton County, TX
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
Indeed. Mere disclosure and more of the following kind of approaches:



isn't doing anything useful.

[Quote above is taken from here http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BT2QZ20091230 ]
WHAT? I thought he was against all this. Did I miss something?
TXagogo is offline  
Old Jan 27, 11, 8:28 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
These proposed state statutes are all well and good, but they will never have any effect on TSA. The Supremacy Clause*, Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, means that federal statutes and regulations trump state law. These proposals are well-intentioned but symbolic. We need to fight this battle at the national government level.

*"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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
PatrickHenry1775 is offline  
Old Jan 27, 11, 8:31 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denton County, TX
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 737
This is OT and I apologize but the post from PatrickHenry causes me to have a question:

1. Does federal law prohibit the use of marijuana?

2. If so, considering the Supremecy Clause, how is CA allowed to legalize MJ use even if for medicinal purposes?
TXagogo is offline  
Old Jan 27, 11, 8:40 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
Originally Posted by TXagogo View Post
This is OT and I apologize but the post from PatrickHenry causes me to have a question:

1. Does federal law prohibit the use of marijuana?

2. If so, considering the Supremecy Clause, how is CA allowed to legalize MJ use even if for medicinal purposes?
Excellent questions.

1. Federal statutes classify marijuana as a controlled substance, Schedule 1, cf. this link http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/sc...c_cs_alpha.pdf

2. Essentially the Department of Justice has ignored the recent trend of states allowing use of medicinal marijuana. Occasionally DOJ huffs and puffs (no pun intended) about a crackdown, but so far even the Bush DOJ allowed the California prescription and licensing system to operate. Several weeks ago TIME magazine printed a thorough article on medicinal marijuana and touched on this issue.
PatrickHenry1775 is offline  
Old Jan 27, 11, 8:49 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denton County, TX
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775 View Post
Excellent questions.

1. Federal statutes classify marijuana as a controlled substance, Schedule 1, cf. this link http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/sc...c_cs_alpha.pdf

2. Essentially the Department of Justice has ignored the recent trend of states allowing use of medicinal marijuana. Occasionally DOJ huffs and puffs (no pun intended) about a crackdown, but so far even the Bush DOJ allowed the California prescription and licensing system to operate. Several weeks ago TIME magazine printed a thorough article on medicinal marijuana and touched on this issue.
Thank you sir - but if I may, just one more question and an anecdote which causes me some concern. If this is not the right venue for this question I totally understand and we could converse via message.

Question - Considering what you wrote above, how is it possible for the federal government to turn a blind eye to a state's law that violates a federal law? It would seem that this act would, by default, be a violation of the Constitution. If one state can make a law like this about weed, then why can't another state make up their own law about something else?

Anecdote - I know someone who is a federal LEO. This person told me that despite the medical MJ licenses issued by California, they arrested holders of this card who were caught in possession of MJ IN California. How could that be? It would seem that we have a huge discrepancy here.
TXagogo is offline  
Old Jan 27, 11, 9:00 pm
  #9  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 89,334
Originally Posted by TXagogo View Post
WHAT? I thought he was against all this. Did I miss something?
If he was against all this, it surely doesn't show in what he was reported to have said 13 months ago.

Originally Posted by TXagogo View Post
Thank you sir - but if I may, just one more question and an anecdote which causes me some concern. If this is not the right venue for this question I totally understand and we could converse via message.

Question - Considering what you wrote above, how is it possible for the federal government to turn a blind eye to a state's law that violates a federal law? It would seem that this act would, by default, be a violation of the Constitution. If one state can make a law like this about weed, then why can't another state make up their own law about something else?

Anecdote - I know someone who is a federal LEO. This person told me that despite the medical MJ licenses issued by California, they arrested holders of this card who were caught in possession of MJ IN California. How could that be? It would seem that we have a huge discrepancy here.
Relying upon the broadest possible application of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, the federal government claims a right in regulating narcotics and a right to enforce such laws by way of federal agents and federal prosecutors in any and all territory that is subject to the jurisdiction of the US Government.

So while the state of California may not pursue a matter involving some narcotic possession, the federal government has reserved the right to pursue the matter involving persons with the very drug that the state has in part decriminalized.

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Jan 28, 11 at 10:07 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
GUWonder is online now  
Old Jan 27, 11, 9:13 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
Originally Posted by TXagogo View Post
Thank you sir - but if I may, just one more question and an anecdote which causes me some concern. If this is not the right venue for this question I totally understand and we could converse via message.

Question - Considering what you wrote above, how is it possible for the federal government to turn a blind eye to a state's law that violates a federal law? It would seem that this act would, by default, be a violation of the Constitution. If one state can make a law like this about weed, then why can't another state make up their own law about something else?

Anecdote - I know someone who is a federal LEO. This person told me that despite the medical MJ licenses issued by California, they arrested holders of this card who were caught in possession of MJ IN California. How could that be? It would seem that we have a huge discrepancy here.
Re Question - Two words: prosecutorial discretion.

Re Anecdote - Two words: prosecutorial discretion. The Department of Justice and individual United States Attorneys have very wide latitude in deciding whether to prosecute an arguable violation of United States Code. When I was an assistant prosecutor at the state level, law enforcement officers would occasionally apply for warrants on arrests that the U.S. Attorney's office declined to prosecute.

My gut instinct is that TSA would moan and groan over this proposed Colorado statute that would require full disclosure. A proposed statute or ordinance in the vicinity of New York City (I do not recall whether it is a New Jersey bill or a New York City proposal) seeks to prohibit use of NoS. Again I predict that TSA would seek to nullify any such proposal enacted into law. How dare the serfs question the omniscient TSA which keeps us safe from the hordes of evil terrorists in our country!
PatrickHenry1775 is offline  
Old Jan 27, 11, 9:17 pm
  #11  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Silver, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,122
Originally Posted by TXagogo View Post
WHAT? I thought he was against all this. Did I miss something?
He's against them for primary searches and being required to get on a plane. He was fine with them for secondaries.

Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775 View Post
These proposed state statutes are all well and good, but they will never have any effect on TSA. The Supremacy Clause*, Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, means that federal statutes and regulations trump state law. These proposals are well-intentioned but symbolic. We need to fight this battle at the national government level.

*"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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
I thought that was only in the case where there were federal laws and state laws covering the same thing - federal took precedence. Now if there's no federal law in place covering this, how can federal law trump it?

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Jan 28, 11 at 10:07 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
Superguy is offline  
Old Jan 27, 11, 9:25 pm
  #12  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 89,334
Originally Posted by Superguy View Post
He's against them for primary searches and being required to get on a plane. He was fine with them for secondaries.
Slope meet Slippery.

Originally Posted by Superguy View Post
I thought that was only in the case where there were federal laws and state laws covering the same thing - federal took precedence. Now if there's no federal law in place covering this, how can federal law trump it?
The feds can trump the states because it is not just limited to federal laws passed by Congress running into and over state/local laws.

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Jan 28, 11 at 10:08 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
GUWonder is online now  
Old Jan 27, 11, 9:30 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
Originally Posted by Superguy View Post
I thought that was only in the case where there were federal laws and state laws covering the same thing - federal took precedence. Now if there's no federal law in place covering this, how can federal law trump it?
Ah, the wonderful world of preemption. If a state statute conflicts with a federal regulatory scheme, courts are supposed to essentially determine whether the federal regulatory scheme occupies the entire field. Another factor is if application of the state statute would interfere with the federal regulatory scheme.

TSA would almost certainly whine that the Colorado full disclosure law interferes with its security procedures at airports.
PatrickHenry1775 is offline  
Old Jan 27, 11, 9:33 pm
  #14  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775 View Post
TSA would almost certainly whine that the Colorado full disclosure law interferes with its security procedures at airports.
So does "common sense."
Caradoc is offline  
Old Jan 27, 11, 9:35 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denton County, TX
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775 View Post
The Department of Justice and individual United States Attorneys have very wide latitude in deciding whether to prosecute an arguable violation of United States Code. When I was an assistant prosecutor at the state level, law enforcement officers would occasionally apply for warrants on arrests that the U.S. Attorney's office declined to prosecute.
Granted I'm not a lawyer but I just fail to understand how a state can pass a law saying something is OK but then its very citizens can get in trouble for doing what their state told them was legal. It seems like trickery. If it is all up to "discretion" then a person can be arrested and prosecuted for doing something that was made legal by their own state.

If what I'm saying is true then something is EXTREMELY wrong with this picture.
TXagogo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: