Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Could Ban Texas Flights Over Anti-Patdown Law
hellkyng writes "The Department of Justice may ban flights from Texas because of the Anti-Patdown law making its way through the legal system. Says Rep. David Simpson, 'Someone must make a stand against the atrocities of our government agents.' Should be interesting to see if Texas can pave the way for grope-free flying fun."
What do you mean collapsed? I think 99% of Americans would support this. Oh, you mean support by the few people that make decisions and can easily be bought.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
"The Department of Justice has sent a letter to Texas legislative leaders warning that the rule would run counter to federal laws."
What ever happened to the 4th amendment? Isn't that federal law?
Yes, apparently "everything is bigger in Texas" does not include balls.
It's not even the perception, sir, unless you happen to work at the TSA and are paid to pretend that you think what you do for a living makes any positive difference whatsoever.
We tried, what did you do?
I was actually contacted to give testimony to the state legislature about this by the ALCU (never got to). After a number of written complaints, action was taken and a bill set in motion... Too bad that the weak spineless reps didn't have the guts to follow through. The DOJ needs an overhaul after this mess.
America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt, 1936
Thereby making the TSA, by definition, terrorists.
Despite their huffing and puffing it is not economically feasible or wise to shut down Texas air traffic. Houston is a major hub for several shipping companies and there are other large companies based in Texas. If they were to prevent air travel that would undermine the economic recovery they Feds have been chasing. Maybe not a lot, but a simple act like that would have rippling impacts and cost this country millions if not billions of dollars.
Texas should play their game and call their bluff.
Dear Lover of 1984-Style Government (aka, a liberal):
You mean except for the fact that most of the pro-government rulings on commerce clause cases have had majority conservative justices? Yeah, let's ignore that completely.
I would think committing sexual assault would be already against the law in every US state. If you discover after you go through security that you are going to have your genitals and breasts groped, you are threatened with arrest and financial penalty if you do not submit or if you attempt to escape the false imprisonment. The TSA saying it is a voluntary search would be an easily broken defence. There's a few top hands at the TSA that could have arrest warrants set on them for conspiracy to commit sex crimes.
Just following orders has not been proven an infallible defence.
How about Texas boots the TSA out of their state, loads up planes using their own security procedures that follows the US constitution (namely the 4th [rights against unreasonable search and seizure], 5th [no person shall be deprived of property and liberty], 2nd [the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed], common law[right to travel], and especially the 10th [powers not delegated to the US by the constitution are reserved to the states]). Then they can see if the US government is willing to shoot down planes full of US citizens or let them crash after they run out of fuel instead of granting a landing. Be ready to hire your own air traffic controllers too. Security theatre is unnecessary, a terrorist would have to buy every ticket on the flight to have a chance of committing another 9/11 attack, because passengers would beat a hijacker to death with their bare hands.
The primary defense against hijacking is a plane filled with people that aren't willing to be hijacked. 9/11 already did that.
So many people who claim to have such great knowledge about the constitution seem to miss that last line in Section 8:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
How exactly does this prove your point? The Constitution enumerates the powers the Federal government holds, and prescribes limits upon that power. Therefore, Section 8 authorizes the government to pass laws that allow it to carry out those powers the Constitution grants to it. However, if the Federal government attempts to usurp powers that the Constitution did NOT grant to it, then nothing in that statement gives it authority to do so. If it did, then the Constitution would essentially be handing absolute, unlimited power to the Federal government. That is clearly not the case.
And, of course, you specifically seem to have missed the preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Again, your point? The Framers of the Constitution understood that there was a necessary role that the Federal government had to play in turning a loose alliance of independent states into a single nation. However, they also understood that a centralized government with unchecked power would grow to be a monster, and therefore they sought to strike a balance between a centralized government that was powerful enough to meet the needs of the nation ("establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare") while still providing balances to that power so that it didn't become a tyranny ("...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"). It's a balancing act.
I understand though. You hate society, you hate the idea of people working together, you hate the general idea behind the formation of the United States...but then, you don't like society do you, even though you've gain immense privileges by living in one.
No, you don't understand...not even remotely. Nothing GPP said even hinted that (s)he wanted to see society destroyed or laws abolished. In fact, if you will think objectively for just a moment, you will find that yourposition is much more likely to lead to chaos and anarchy than GPP's. You argue that the Federal government should be able to pass whatever laws it wants, regardless of what the Constitution allows, simply because it IS the Federal government. In other words, you want everyone in the country to obey the law, except for the Federal government itself. They, you think, are above the law. "Do as I say, not as I do"? No. Any leader -- whether individual or corporal -- must model respect for the law by themselves respecting the law, if they seriously expect anyone else to do likewise. Therefore, if the Federal government wants the people of the United States to uphold the law, they must uphold the law themselves, and thus the Federal government must be bound by the Constitution.
You have this ludicrous opinion that the Constitution is the ONLY law of the land, when it would be impossible for a society to exist without laws...
Those two points are not polar opposites; they are orthogonal. Like it or not, the Constitution IS the law of th
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?