Popperian

Read this TSOs ...

Texas Bill Would Make Invasive Pat-Downs a Felony
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/29...-downs-felony/


I actually got the name of the TSA guy who grabbed my cock at LAX, we shall see what happens. But according to the EPIC lawsuit, all of these scanners/sexual assaults haven't even been authorized by Congress at all (which had blocked all of it).

It was all the executive branch (Obama).

So weird for me to have voted for Obama but totally supporting the GOP with all of their fringe loonies in this stuff. But all I actually care about is policy and on this sexual assault/radiation issue, it's clear that it is a no-brainer that the Republican Party, red states like Texas, and others is leading the fight.

We would never see the spineless Democrats do this sort of thing ...

Popperian

More detail ...


Texas bill would make invasive pat-downs a felony
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...creening_n.htm


GO TEXAS!!!

Popperian

So, TSOs, now that there is in fact real-deal criminal felony legislation moving forward and it is state police, under jurisdiction of these bills, that actually do law enforcement at airports ...

... are you working on trying out some black & white striped uniforms instead of the blue?

VH-RMD

what they will claim is Federal trumps state, but what if you are only flying from one port in Texas to another?

Popperian

State police are the legal authority in the airports however and this would be a state criminal law.

TSA agents aren't even cops, they don't actually have any real authority, they are basically pulled off the street, given a day of "memorize the procedures" and then they start molesting people. They don't have any justice of the peace powers/etc.

ALL of that falls to the state police which will have to abide by this law.

So long as the law passes, any passenger will be able to file state felony criminal charges against any TSA screener that does these sorts of things to them (as per the letter) without express written consent.

If the law passes, the TSA is going to have a lot of problems to deal with.

As further thought on the state/federal thing, one of the things people don't realize is that Congress hasn't even authorized these scanners/molestations. The last related laws were 300+ against.

Technically speaking, these scanners/molestations aren't even legally authorized. The last laws on the books required the TSA to have the Chief Privacy Officer solicit public comment and publish a privacy impact statement, and after they did that ... THEN go back to congress for final approval to authorize the use of the devices as a "final screening" device.

Given that congress itself hasn't approved this stuff and it is a wholly Executive Branch over-rule congress thing then what this issue reall is, is a "State vs Executive Branch" issue as the only court challenges on these things to date have been sided against the TSA, with avarice.

The status of things is this:


The Courts: Precedent at SC Indicates Against, Existing Rulings Face Jurisdictional Battles however actually rulings have been harshly against the TSA.

Congress: Last known votes indicate 300+ against.

States: More than half a dozen states working on very clear legislation that would criminalize TSA molestations, including Texas which is moving forward strongly and clearly.

Executive Branch: Obama/Napolitano/Pistole ... this is where this policy has come out of and they are the biggest advocates of it.

All available evidence basically indicates this whole thing is Obama Admin. vs Rest of Humanity.

It is a very odd situation, I truly never would have expected Obama to be so into these sorts of irrational, draconian, totalitarian things. I still don't really get why he's doing it.

My best guess is they think it is "politically smart" or something they can "look tough on" for political reasons ... but that argument goes out the door when Texas bullies them back (which they appear to be doing directly).

RichardKenner

It doesn't matter whether it's interstate or not: the argument is that aviation is a Federal matter. If you're arrested on Federal drug charges, proving that the drugs were always within your state isn't a defense.

But it's not at all clear that supremacy would apply here or in what form. The classic case is where a locality passes a law that dictates flight paths. The FAA then argues (successfully) that they aren't bound by such a law.

Here, it's different because it's a criminal matter involving an individual that's clearly under the jurisdiction of the state. There's not a whole lot of precedent in a situation like that.

I'd Rather Walk

"So weird for me to have voted for Obama but totally supporting the GOP with all of their fringe loonies in this stuff. But all I actually care about is policy and on this sexual assault/radiation issue, it's clear that it is a no-brainer that the Republican Party, red states like Texas, and others is leading the fight."

This election will be the first I vote this issue, ignore the party and other issues I've been concerned with in the past.. There are people from both parties on both sides of this. King, Repub. chair of DHS committee says anything for security, do whatever TSA says. Rep. Cissna is a DEm. and has support of her Dem. Gov. and Senator. Unfortunately, those speaking out against the TSA are either on the fringe of their party or are talking but not doing much. Chaffetz's daughter gets waylaid into a private room and gets felt up , why isn't he calling for firing of Pistole. Looks to me like the Repubs will shoot themselves in the foot and put up a bad candidate who can't get elected.

mre5765

Would you point out the clause in the constitution that gives the feds jurisdiction over intra-state aviation?

flyinbob

<my underline>

This is where they will get their out. The claim will be that by purchasing a ticket to fly, you agree to consent to all requirement of flying, and therefore consent to all "security" procedures necessary to fly. I'm wondering if the Texas legislature has fully vetted this thing through federal lawyers.

prushing

Problem is that the law is giving them a standard out. All they would have to do is say that if you don't go through the nude-o-scope you are giving them probable cause that you are hiding something. Now this normally wouldn't be the case like with Cops, but the TSA has already shown they don't have to follow the same laws.

Affection

No, but I can point out case law where the Supreme Court allowed the feds to use the interstate commerce as an excuse to legislate to hotel owners (because people who drive interstate use hotels, right?), and legislate farmers as to whether or not they may eat their own grain (because it might affect the price of grain all over the country -- no joke!).

In the courts, all aviation falls directly within the jurisdiction of the feds. You may not agree that the Constitution allows for it (and I can't blame you), but that's how it is.

That said, states are allowed to define their own criminal laws, and I see TX's bill as surviving a challenge.

--Jon

BearX220

This issue unites right-wing liberty-and-freedom voters and left-wing civil libertarians... although I agree the right has done more. It's weird to me that the Alex Jones / Infowars wing of the GOP has been excellent and proactive on this subject while the ACLU has been relatively mush-mouthed. And it's shocking that Obama has been so passive and uncaring while his lieutenants tear up our civil rights this way. I thought he of all people would be strong on civil rights, transparent government, etc., but in fact he's been far worse than his predecessor. I'm jonesing for an excuse to vote against Obama on this issue alone.

jordanmills

I asked Rep. Simpson about this today. I would bet that the state will make a case that you can't consent to any violation of your rights under duress. My position (and what I hope will be that of the state) is to arrest them all and let the courts sort it out.

SWCPHX

As much as I'd like to see the bill pass, I fear that it will fall victim to the law of unintended consequences.

RichardKenner

The same one that gives them jurisdiction over intra-state drug sales: the "Commerce Clause". The reasoning (which some dispute in the case of drug laws, but let's not get into that here!) is that aviation is inherently an inter-state activity and the subset that's intra-state is too small to deal with separately.

Contrast pilot's and driver's licenses: aside from the history, the reason given for having each state issue the latter with their own standards is that most (but, of course, not all) driving is done within each state. The burdens of having different driving rules between states isn't viewed as great because few people regularly drive in more than a couple of states. But it doesn't make sense to have separate pilot's licenses in every state, even less sense to have different aircraft certification requirements in each state, and isn't practical to have different ATC and airway rules in each state