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."

Comments

Update on this story

[Sonny Yatsen]

As of earlier today, the law's main sponsor, Dan Patrick, R-Houston, said the law is dead after support for the law collapsed.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/28032459/detail.html

Re:Update on this story

[guruevi]

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.

Re:Update on this story

[Noughmad]

The people won't read it either. The contents of a law have very little correlation to people's support for it.

Re:Update on this story

[MooseTick]

you are mistaken. Most people believe the pat downs make them safer. I bet half would not approve if eliminating them. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, just the perception.

Re:Update on this story

[Wovel]

Too bad our lawmakers are so spineless. That is a battle the FAA would lose. The TSA has done nothing to make us more secure. Every attempted airline incident has been stopped by passengers and/or air marshals. I am sure they would say you just don't here about all the good stuff they do. I say BS.

Re:Update on this story

[Maltheus]

Yes, apparently "everything is bigger in Texas" does not include balls.

Re:Update on this story

[dynamo]

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.

Re:Update on this story

[GlassHeart]

I think 99% of Americans would support this.

I don't think you can get 99% of Americans to agree that the earth isn't flat.

Re:Update on this story

[Gunnut1124]

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.

Re:Update on this story

[Dracos]

Thereby making the TSA, by definition, terrorists.

Re:Update on this story

[Dracos]

Before the Civil War, people referred to the US as a collective, "the United States are...". Afterward, there was a shift to the singular, "the United States is...".

Re:Update on this story

[wurp]

No, you appear to assume the default is that we should allow invasive procedures based on unsupported assertions.

We don't have to show that their unsupported assertions are false. They have to show that there is supporting evidence, and then, based on that evidence, we could pass an amendment to the constitution saying that it's OK to violate the 4th amendment rights. Until then, it's not just a gross violation of my rights, it's a gross violation based on hot air.

Re:Update on this story

[Anonymous Coward]

I know. I literally have not flown anywhere since 9/11. I consider it a matter of principle to keep up with my little boycott. Whenever it is mentioned in my family, they say "oh, you don't like to fly". I say "no, I would love to fly, I just refuse to do all the stupid shit I have to do before I get on a plane". And their response is always to cock their heads like dogs learning a new word.

It's been 10 years of this, and they still find it easier to think I'm a giant pussy who doesn't want to fly, rather than accept the idea that maybe all those security checks are completely pointless. If you've *had* to fly since 9/11, you've pretty must just accepted this and gone on with your life. But to someone who still tries to do the right thing even if no one will ever notice or care, it sucks.

Re:Update on this story

[Coolhand2120]

I'm pretty sure the GP was talking about the gate security, not the air marshals, which existed under the FAA long before the TSA was ever even thought of. The TSA guys at the gate don't carry guns, they call the local police if there is a problem and, on average, have the intellect of fly larvae, no insult intended towards fly larvae. So something tells me the casting director for the gate TSA guys didn't hire the plainclothes marshals on the planes.

And nobody has any problem with the air marshals, they don't grope you as you pass by them. Furthermore, air marshals can prevent many types of terrorist threats, and this is true a priori, on the other hand, the TSA's gate screens have only managed to catch a few staff members they accidentally hired that had a criminal history for molesting children. That's right, we hired people who like to molest children to ... molest children! ! It's the fucking pedophile cream dream! And don't think for a second there wasn't a line a mile long of yet-to-be-identified pedophiles lining up for the "Molest the children" job. No, no terrorist plots uncovered. Nobody wishing harm to the people on the aircraft stopped. Oh, they were there! They just let those guys go by. And as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. They have a 100% failure rate, they piss everyone off, El Al thinks they are a fucking joke and they make 1984 look a lot more like it could really happen. Can someone explain why are we blowing our money on this bullshit!?

Re:Update on this story

[Lunix Nutcase]

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.

Re:Update on this story

[Anonymous Coward]

Simpson continued.... "We're just saying you can't go straight to third base."

If I want to go right to oral sex without obtaining probable cause, I should be able to dammit!

You kids are all whores. Back when I was eligible to play sex baseball (late 90s), third base was junk-groping. In those days, you didn't go down on somebody unless you were willing to go all the way anyway. Sometime between then and now, the kids decided oral wasn't really sex (way to go, Bill!), and third base got redefined. Simpson just never got the memo.

Re:Update on this story

[ArcherB]

Interstate commerce clause trumps the 9th and 10th. At least that is what the courts will say, and they may be correct. That said, I support states telling the feds to fuck off, as that is the only thing that gets them to reconsider stupid regulations that do NOT make flying safer.

Should the Interstate Commerce Clause trump the 1st or 2nd? No. Why? Because the authors of the Constitution wrote it, but some were hesitant to sign it for various reasons. Those concerns were answered by the Bill or Rights, or 1st ten Amendments of the Constitution. You could consider Amendments to be updates or corrections to what was written before it. Therefor, amendments to the Constitution should trump the Constitution as it was written previously. For an example, alcohol is still illegal according to the Constitution, but a later amendment allowed it again. The same could be said as any amendment taking precedence over the Commerce Clause.

However, the 10th Amendment states that the US gov't may only do what is spelled out in the Constitution. Regulating interstate commerce is spelled out via the commerce clause. The problem is that the courts have allowed the INTERSTATE commerce clause to apply in commerce that never leaves a state. In other words, the courts have said the federal government has unlimited power under the commerce clause.

Re:Update on this story

[AK Marc]

They hate pat downs. But they like that the other guy gets them.

It's like drugs. Most adult Americans have tried drugs without any ill effects. And most think that what they did should be a felony. And most think what they did shouldn't have been a felony when they did it if they were caught.

People have inconsistent ideas. They hate pat downs. They want to be able to go through without them. They think them useless and ineffective. And when brought to a vote, they'll hate on their fellow Americans enough to vote from spite (wanting the other guy to get patted down) rather than voting with reason and forethought.

Re:Update on this story

[jd]

People believe in 20 contradictory things before breakfast. It's entirely plausible that 50% of Americans would simultaneously want others patted down for security reasons provided they themselves had legal protection against it, without even realizing that a contradiction even exists.

Re:Update on this story

[cpu6502]

>>>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.

Wow. I'm surprised you didn't call me a "slut" like that Democrat Radio DJ did yesterday. Oh well. (shrug).

Jefferson and Madison - do you consider them "haters" too? You probably will after you read this: âoeResolved, That the several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government. But that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes â" delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

"That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.â

Damn those Founding Fathers and their "hating society, hating people working together, and hating the general idea behind the formation of the United States." Those guys were nutjobs! (end sarcasm). No what I hate is having my penis felt up by strangers, or being irradiated by those scanners. You mentioned "other laws". Well: Isn't there a law forbidding sexual groping? Isn't that assault? Many State Prosecutors say that it is, and are arresting TSA officers for the act.

Cheers to them.

Re:Update on this story

[element-o.p.]

Simply because you disagree with someone's opinion of how government should work does not make them a sociopath, but nice try at painting your ideological opponent with emotional rhetoric so as to not have to make a logical, rational counter-argument.

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

Re:Update on this story

[slimjim8094]

First,

Many State Prosecutors say that it is, and are arresting TSA officers for the act.

[citation needed]. I'm sure I would've heard of this, and if I somehow missed it I'd love to read it.

Second, you - like most people complaining about states' rights - forget that most decisions *are* left to the states. I agree with you that more *should* be left to the states. But the fact of the matter is that it is much, much easier to travel across the country than it once was. At the time of the Constitution's drafting, it was not feasible to traverse the country on a whim, fishing for a state that allowed whatever it is you wanted to do. For example, in my home state the age to buy tobacco is 19, but drive for an hour and you can buy them at 18. This wasn't exactly feasible at the time of the Constitution. Similarly, out-of-state sales tax was a non-issue until you could order online and have it shipped in 2 days. I know some people argue about sales tax, but the fact remains it's a good example of where increased mobility is subverting the original intent of state-based laws.

Finally, I don't really care what the Founders thought, aside from academically. One of the most important parts of the Constitution - and unquestionably the intention of the Founders - was that the Constitution was a living document, meant to be interpreted and changed as the nation grew. The Founders knew that the country in a few hundred years would be entirely different than the one they were in, and made this explicit. Their intentions are important for all Americans to understand as a matter of our history, but ultimately irrelevant. They're not gods, nor did they want to be. From my understanding of those men, they would have been mortified to hear that more than 200 years later, we were all running around going "but the founders!" Actually, that sounds like a religion - we've elevated them on a pedestal (as they've earned), but because of it some people aren't evaluating their words rationally and just accepting them as gospel.

Re:Update on this story

[halivar]

That's why many shed the "liberal" label for "progressive." The liberal/libertarian cares about rights. The progressive cares about the children. Sometimes liberal really means "conservative" (where the "conservative" position on a subject implies more personal freedoms). The labels, they really mean nothing now.

Re:Update on this story

[artor3]

I think you're confusing "liberal" with "politician". The Republicans have been quite big on telling us how to live. You can't have abortions, you can't marry someone of the same sex, you can't join collectively bargain with your employer, you can't sue companies that have a contract with you, you can't vote if you're an out-of-state student or poor city dweller.

Oh, and all those times we as a nation have come together to create a safety for those in need, through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and Food Stamps and Unemployment Benefits? Fuck those people! More tax cuts to the super-rich! Doesn't matter that the majority of the country disagrees with them. They'll hold our national credit rating hostage, and burn the country to the ground if they don't get what they want.

Re:Update on this story

[AK Marc]

I can only judge "liberal" by what I see, and what I see in France, Australia, England, and the US is liberal politicians (Sarkozy, Conroy, Obama, Schumer) working to censor the internet, tell us how to live, and how much energy we are allowed to consume

But by that definition, Karl Rove, Bush Jr., McCain, and such are also liberals. When your definition of "liberal" includes most politicians of both parties (and apparently all judges from the "conservative" party), then it seems to be a worthless definition.

I don't want to associate with that label.

Yes, that's obvious. You have some emotional reaction to the label that trumps all logic and reason, and thus you employ no logic or reason in any post related to that label. We see that. Though, I'm actually surprised. I didn't think you'd actually recognize that in yourself.

Great news citizens!

[denzacar]

Also, the chocolate ration will be raised to twenty grammes a week.

Re:Great news citizens!

[Surt]

I think you're misremembering, and it doesn't matter anyway as we've been further able to increase the ration to 15 grammes.

Counter to federal laws?

[schwit1]

"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?

Re:Counter to federal laws?

[i.r.id10t]

No actually you aren't. Too lazy to google it now, but it was here on /. and many other places about a guy who refused and tried to leave and was threatened with a $10k fine

Re:Counter to federal laws?

[wurp]

So I give up my constitutional rights if I pass a sign saying that the passing beyond it voids my rights?

Re:Counter to federal laws?

[Hatta]

Trumped by the commerce clause and general welfare clause

Hey, that's convenient. Any time you cross state lines, you're engaging in interstate commerce. That means the 4th amendment doesn't apply!

Hold on! Even if you're not crossing state lines, you might have drugs in the trunk! That means we can search your car due to the general welfare clause.

You could also argue it is not an unreasonable search

That would be a laugh!

If the commerce clause and general welfare clause work the way you think they do, than none of the protections in the constitution are any protection at all. We might as well scrap the entire bill of rights. Oh wait, we already have.

This doesn't sound like Texas politics...

[bradorsomething]

Something's going on in the background here... it's unlikely these legislators are taking such a myopic view. Say the TSA tries to ban flights to Texas... really? Would anyone stand for this? Even a Californian would stand up for Texas if that were to happen. Even an Oregonian... hell, maybe even someone from Delaware.

This bill sounds like something John Wayne would support, which means it should be gravy to pass through the Texas house.

Re:"interesting to see if Texas can pave the way"

[Surt]

That would be interesting as the primary defense against hijacking is a locked door, not a pat down.

Groping

[verbatim]

But if the TSA doesn't grope my junk, who will?

Forever Alone...

Not Economically Feasible

[Goboxer]

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.

There's already an Anti-Patdown Law

[ikarous]

It reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:Maybe Indiana has the balls to do it first

[qubezz]

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.

Re:"interesting to see if Texas can pave the way"

[arbarbonif]

The primary defense against hijacking is a plane filled with people that aren't willing to be hijacked. 9/11 already did that.

At Long Last

[Concern]

Have we no sense of decency?

It was all fun and games when it was graft and bribery on a multibillion spend to put millimeter wave scanners in a few security lines. It was obviously stupid because the devices can be fooled by concealing things in body cavities. In a sane world, the criminal justice system would put the Bush-era TSA people who planned this scheme on the stand, where they'd say "well, we thought it was a good idea at the time;" any high-school educated jury wouldn't believe a word of it, and would hand out prison sentences for the various criminals involved in the federal security bureaucracy and device vendors. Security apparatus steals tax money, news at 11, complete with body scans of preteen girls.

But in these crazy times, in for a penny, in for a pound. Instead of just letting people opt-out of being scanned (no reason not to, since the devices are only reaching a few percent of travelers anyway, and even an illiterate petty criminal can explain why they're worthless for stopping terrorism), they're trying to push the issue with the also ineffective but highly titillating federally-funded full body massage.

Perhaps it's an experiment designed to determine just how debased the American people have become - how ignorant of their own rights and heritage. In which case, well played.

With all the ways I don't seem to see eye to eye with the Tea Party and the Texas government these days, it's a genuine pleasure to find some common ground, and say, I take my hat off to them.