Slashdot Mirror
State Legislatures Attempt To Limit TSA Searches
OverTheGeicoE writes "Here's a familiar story: a breast cancer survivor's mastectomy scars showed up on a TSA scan, which forced a horrifying pat-down ('feel-up' in her words) of the affected area. The woman decided that she would not subject herself to that again, and was barred from a later flight from Seattle to Juneau for that reason. But now the story takes an interesting turn: the woman is Alaska State Rep. Sharon Cissna, and once she finally made it back to Alaska she started sponsoring legislation to restrict TSA searches. Her many bills, if passed, would criminalize both pat-downs and 'naked scanning,' as well as require better health warnings for X-ray scanners and even studies of airport screenings' physical and psychological effects. Other states, including Utah and Texas, are considering similar legislation. For example, Texas State Rep. David Simpson is preparing to reintroduce his Traveler Dignity Act again in 2013 if he is re-elected. The last time that bill was being considered the Federal government threatened to turn all of Texas into a 'no-fly zone'."
Wait....
The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution states that, when there is a conflict, Federal law always trumps State law. So these measures are a nice gesture but ultimately useless. Too bad, I agree with them in principle, just not in execution.
So the populace hates the TSA, now the state governments are starting to hate the TSA, just a matter of time until we either return to a civilized system or have a civil war.
Also, this would've been the first post, but that TSA agent kept having to "re-examine" my groin.
It's about time the pendulum starts swinging away from the abusive, oppressive practices that the terrorists have set in place over our society.
America is supposed to be the land of the free, home of the brave. Not the land of the willing to consent to invasive and abusive practices because of drummed up fear.
What do people hate this year? Ah, the TSA. Let's promise to do something about that if we're reelected.
Once reelected, we can safely ignore it for 2/4/6 years, depending on elected body...
...if only there were a way for reality to affect our politicians in other ways.... shoddy health insurance, loan scandals, eroding wages for skilled work, being on the wrong end of globalization.... etc. Now we can see true motivation.
Oh for effen crying out loud! When it is THEM then well we have a PROBLEM! But if they are not affected and we complain to the wahzoo we are complainers! No I want the TSA to keep going because I want THEM to start understanding how WE are dealt with by a government!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I understand why the woman was upset, but state legislatures (generally the Republican controlled ones) still do not get it. You cannot preempt federal law by state legislation. TSA actions are governed at the federal level. States have no authority to tell them what they can and cannot do. Consider what could, in theory, happen if states could preempt federal law. Let's pretend that Mythonia (made up) is an American state and they legislate that only white male citizens over the age of 18 can vote. Then there is nothing the non-white citizens of Mythonia can do about it except try to change the law as the other 49 states and the federal government shrug their shoulders and say "Wish we could help".
In this era of the Affordable Care Act, Home Land Security, and the notion Commerce Clause means the EPA, Dpt of Education, DOE, and FCC can do whatever they want any time any place its the states need to make a stand.
If State Legislatures don't WAKE THE F***K UP and push back they will be irrelevant. Its time to remind dear old Uncle Sam the cooperative federalism only means you cooperate when you support what the federal government is doing. Citizen show some spine and back your legislators and governors if the stand against Washington, don't dessert them when Washington pushes back but cutting access to funds, blocking air travel etc; these things are important but the very character of our nation is at stake!
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I'd love to see the states start calling the Federal Bluff. If the states revolt in unison against over reaching Federal Intrusions, the Feds will have no choice but to back off.
The problem is we have a bunch of pussified representatives.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The idea of the FAA blocking a state is ludicrous. However, the idea of the states working without the FAA and TSA is appealing.
Perhaps the states could do a better job than the fed in implementing security? The variety of security differences could introduce better security by their differences.
Before federal deregulation, Southwest flew entirely within Texas so that it could set its own fares and schedules. I think PSA did the same thing by flying only within California. I could certainly see this happening again if the states and the feds go to war over the TSA. If you fly across state lines or fly international, you've got to go through the TSA first, but if you stay within your own state, you don't.
As a regular international traveler I can say:
The entire airport system is only as good as its weakest link. Because not every passenger is scanned with these devices the security level of the flight is only as high as the worst scanned person. Given that these scanners are only at some airports and only domestic ones, the entirety of our airspace is compromised. I find no increased security. However if everyone were was scanned, then T-Hz scanned (combination scanning) then it could be argued that the double screening method added some security.
Every time I fly across the ocean I have to use one of those Thz scanners, but coming back I'm not put through one. This only makes a small material difference - that is the amount of fuel on the plane. This effectively nullifies any benefit the scanners have.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Why does it take a representative to be affected before they represent the people?
Aren't they supposed to be listening to us complaining and take action? Instead it seems like they only act on what is affecting them.
Contrasted with
It's too late to try to bring rationality into this discussion. The industry that has sprung up to service the security theatre is not going to back down, and enough lawmakers have been scared into the "zomg, the terrorists" knee jerk reactions that you can't change anything.
If you're against an intrusive TSA, you're in favor of terrorism. Heavens forbid you refuse to get into the machine because the rent a cop tells you it's safe -- based on the extensive medical training they're required to receive, why wouldn't you take them at their word? It was only built by the lowest bidder, what could possibly go wrong?
Meanwhile, it seems like 1984 and Big Brother just keep happening around us. And the loss of those pesky constitutional rights just keeps going.
I wonder if there are accurate stats which show how much visits to the US are down? Of course, if you keep all of the foreigners out, you've accomplished half the battle I guess. Of course, if other countries started fingerprinting US citizens and gathering biometric information, the US would be up in arms at how unfair it is.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You added Mythonia, but there's still only 50 states? Is this after California fell in the ocean, after Texas seceded or after Florida was sold to Cuba?
That's great! The last time I visited Texas, the flies were terrible!
Have gnu, will travel.
Why does it take a representative to be affected before they represent the people? Aren't they supposed to be listening to us complaining and take action? Instead it seems like they only act on what is affecting them.
Pretty much the same reason you get the crosswalk light installed only after some kid or old lady gets killed. People, including legislators, do what's easiest for them. When it's easier to do nothing, do nothing. When doing nothing gets to be more trouble than doing something, only then you do something.
I am not a crackpot.
It's natural for people to best understand the ramifications of law, policy, and procedure when it directly affects themselves. Perhaps a differently worded question is: wouldn't *we* be better off if our representatives more broadly represented us -- in terms of wealth, health, age, religion, ethnicity, educational background, etc.? That means more minorities and women, but it also means more factory workers [union and nonunion], more with a direct experience of poverty, more with a background in STEM, etc. Sure there are a few national politicians here and there who meet those kinds of broad demographics, but nowhere near the levels that America as a whole contains.
In short, elect fewer old white rich male lawyers and you may find a better cross section of legislative ideas and initiatives.
Let's make all of congress, the senate, and of course, the President and cronies, have to go thru a TSA scanner and pat down every time they want to enter the senate, or the white house, or congress. Let's do this for a month, then lets have a revote on this stuff.
My guess is we'd get rid of all the scanners and pat downs.
After all, the people who make the laws are the one rarely affected by the laws they are making, unless it's something to benefit them.
Be seeing you...
Call me a cynic, but why did this woman not actively support regaining our rights and dignity BEFORE she became a victim of the TSA? It seems a little self serving for her to suddenly pick up that flag only after her own personal traumatic experience. As a fellow human, I can sympathize with what she's gone through, but as a politician it looks less than righteous.
In the example you gave Mythonia would then have laws on its book that conflict with Federal law and hence would be invalid. In the case of what the Senator is proposing, there are no specific Federal laws they would be going against. Congress passed bills creating the DHS and TSA, but no law has been specifically passed defining their authority nor defining how they're to execute their charter. So while you're quite right that you cannot pre-empt federal law by state legislation if this theoretically got all the way to SCOTUS the TSA would likely be required to point to exactly what Federal law they were claiming had supremacy.
You added Mythonia, but there's still only 50 states? Is this after California fell in the ocean, after Texas seceded or after Florida was sold to Cuba?
None, we sold Alaska to Canada.
So all it takes is a politician to get fondled and it's an outrage worthy of legislation, but for us pedestrians and punters tough beans.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Isn't there something somewhere about powers not explicitly granted to the federation are restricted to the state? I'm sure I read something like this somewhere, and I don't see no TSA in the constitution.
Because Texas has two very important hubs, DFW and IAH. Plus a very large number of southwest flights pass through Texas. When DFW/IAH gets shutdown the ripples will be national, good luck finding a flight anywhere. The texas leg should totally call their bluff, lets see what happens when united can't fly through IAH, and American can't fly through DFW. Plus chopping the middle out of southwest won't be pretty either.
Loosing the 2,3 and 4th largest airlines in the US will be a bigger problem for TSA, than any terrorist attack.
oppressive practices that the terrorists have set in place over our society
As if Osama drafted the plans himself, rather than the people who actually benefit from expanding the business of government (the elite at the top of the pyramid).
If your argument is that a state cannot prosecute and jail a sex offender if they're a federal employee, you might want to rethink that.
... this probably won't make much legal hay in the end, it may be an extremely effective form of protest.
Good on them.
Check your premises.
States can make it really uncomfortable for the Fed to actually enforce their policy.
Look at what's happened in Arizona; whether or not you agree with the policies, they are putting the federal government on the defensive about its own policies.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
while it is nice that this stuff is finally being challenged....i am saddened that it had to happen to her before she was willing to stand up against it
too often, we only see the injustice in a situation when it effects us. She didnt give a flying fuck when my kids were being groped by the TSA but now that it happened to her, its a big fucking problem....typical
The terrorists have already won.
Perhaps not. What law gives the TSA this authority? They won't say, and its quite possible no such law exists.
If no such law actually exists, then the TSA agents are indeed subject to state laws on this subject.
I personally think that Texas or Alaska or some state should pass a law prohibiting anyone, including any government agency not specifically unauthorized by statue from interfering with citizens right to travel.
The law would have to make it an absolute defense to charges brought under this law to cite the applicable law authorizing said interference.
Sharon Cissna is a Democrat.
When it happens to someone from 'ruling caste', then it becomes a big deal.
That won't work... they'll just continue to not show up.
Actually, all the Republicans "blamed" Obama for with the last underwear bomber was Janet Napolitano saying "the system worked" when the only reason the guy was stopped was because of the actions of other passengers on the plane, not because of anything done by the TSA.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
No, North and South Dakota finally settled their differences and re-united.
The TSA was created to comfort passengers after 9/11 by providing a highly visible change to the airport security measures through inconveniencing all passengers as much as possible.
In reality, even without the TSA, the nature of in flight security changed forever on 9/11. Now everyone understands that the risk of hijacked planes is far greater than just the lives of those held hostage on the plane. By showing the larger threat hijacked planes pose as weapons, the hijackers on 9/11 effectively ended hijacking as a means to terrorize the greater population since most will accept that hijacked planes must be shot down before the plane can be used to pose a larger threat. Passengers and crews now know that their only hope for survival in a hijack attempt is to take down the hijackers themselves and regain control of the plane.
Security is still required to keep weapons and bombs off of flights, but even the security before 9/11 was sufficient to deter the hijackers from bringing guns or other large weapons. As prisoners have shown, sharp weapons can be made from virtually anything solid, but these weapons would be less effective in a hijack today since the passengers and crew would be willing to be cut to overpower hijackers.
The only minimal additional security provided since 9/11 is in limiting compounds that could be used to make explosives with the intent of destroying a plane rather than hijacking. This is battle of diminishing returns, where ever growing intrusions into personal privacy and intrusions provide ever smaller degrees of increased security and protection.
I have no problem with scanned luggage and carryons, but requiring everyone to remove shoes and clothes is purely an attempt to make each passenger feel and intimately experience the security.
These are psychological steps that accomplish virtually nothing to improve our security, but only raise the perception of safety.
The Montana state supreme court recently voided the Citizens United ruling that allowed the creation of Super PACs. I hope the great state of Montana strikes another blow for freedom by declaring the TSA and Homeland Security persona non grata in the state. Arrest and detain every one of them for pedophilia, indecent exposure, sexual assault, and their even worse crimes against our First Amendment rights.
Don't care for that in the Union? OK, fine. Montana has enough hydroelectric, coal, natural gas, and oil (Bakken Formation) power to power a small continent, and enough missile fields to do just fine on its own. Worse would be to continue to submit to the Greek Tragedy that has become the United States.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
On the other hand, the constitution of the US explicitly states that powers not granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved for the states and the people. Which creates a gap that a state can slip through and justly dictate to the federal government that no, in fact, it cannot do something. The federal government can regulate the transaction with which you buy your airline ticket, because that is (likely) interstate commerce. Once you arrive at the airport, however, that is interstate travel. A very different beast, and one that is not a protected power of the federal government.
Of course, whether the federal government will agree or not is something else. But then, the federal government has been going insane with the disregard for the constitution that it supposedly is required to follow. If the federal government won't adhere to its part of the most important contract in the US, why should any other party?
How about simple enforcing the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution??
The thing you and all the other "Federal Law trumps State Law" posters are missing is that the TSA rules about scanning, being touched, etc are not Federal Laws.
They are rules imposed by a Federal Agency and are not laws which have been passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. The fact that Congressmembers have been talking about passing laws to limit the TSA clearly shows that what the TSA imposes on travelers are not Federal Law.
YES, you can.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
More to the point, if the Federal government has no authority to do the law in question or is in violation of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, then the Supremacy Clause's effect is null and void.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
And then the TSA touches their balls like this.
Oil and lots of refinery capacity. Texas's one advantage when dealing with the federal government.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Why does this have to be an issue for individual states? It is OUR (presuming the reader is a US citizen) federal government. Why aren't people calling out the individuals who granted the authority to the TSA and made the decisions there to ignore our rights and our dignity? It is not like it is a bunch of computers in Washington DC who are doing this; it is people that either you or friends of yours voted for. Let the people who support this be put on record as supporting it and then put pressure on the people who appointed them.
Individuals in government often made bad decisions, even when trying to do the right thing (like keep us safe). Sure, the terrorists have won when government takes away our rights to keep us safe. But the government won't realize that those rights were important enough to the people not to take away if the people just accept it.
The passengers who fought back against the terrorists are what is keeping us safe, not a scanner with a voyeur leering at it.
Or maybe Rhode Island and Connecticut combined into a single state. It's ridiculous that a state that small still exists.
Another one is Delaware: it should combine with Maryland. We have too many states in this country, which differ too greatly in size and population.
Some other states that should combine:
Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine
North and South Dakota
Wyoming and Montana
Some other states need to break apart to make their sizes more manageable and equivalent to other states:
California
Texas
New York (NYC should break away from the rest of the state)
Florida (the non-panhandle parts of it should combine with Alabama and Georgia)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Right, when the Lawmakers get inconvenienced or treated like the rest of us, they change the laws (or have the power/connections to get the process started) Now, let's make them give up their nice cozy pension plans and medical care plans, all taxpayer subsidized, which in many cases includes their Family members, for life. Make them use the same pool of resources the common man has, deductibles, co-pays, waiting periods. Let them see $$$ coming out their pockets, not just for the same cost of the monthly premiums we have to pay, but have them dive into their pockets when they get the prescriptions, like we do. I want to see their reaction after paying their premiums, and they now find out the have to meet their deductibles, otherwise it's *dig into your pockets again* to pay those. Both the pension plans and the medical plans are taxpayer paid, why can't we all get a sweet deal like that, it's our money?!?!? You say the Government can't run a good health care program, have a look at the Military. Not saying the men and women who serve our Country don't deserve it, I'm saying we do too, since we pay for it, ON TOP OF OUR OWN COVERAGES..... Yeah, make 'em eat their own dogfood!
If these scanners are removed and there is some sort of terrorist attack where the the terrorist hid something or a bomb in his clothing, you can bet the public will cry out and ask why the government was so stupid as to stop these practices.
In our safety obsessed country, people just can't accept the fact that life has some inherent risks and if we are going to have a free and open society, we have to accept that a very small minority of assholes are going to harm us.
But people can't comprehend that - as they speed down the highway at 75+ mph talkign on their celll phones to get some junk food to sit in front of the TV biding their time until they get some sort of obesity related disease.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What the state representative is reacting to is not law, but policy. The use of "nude-o-scopes" and invasive pat-downs are not codified in federal law, so restricting their use is fair game. The supremacy clause arguably applies only to laws, not regulations or policies enacted outside of the law.
The TSA screeners aren't law enforcement officers. They cannot themselves arrest you or prevent you from passing through security without the aid of a local or state police officer. If the state and locality decide not to respond to an individual breaching security -- well, the breach happens. A state could simply make a rule preventing police officers from arresting people that refuse certain types of screening and permitting them to, essentially, bypass security.
States also don't have to their waive public safety laws (such as those pertaining to radiation exposure and operator requirements for such devices), nor sexual battery laws (TSA screeners are not law enforcement officers, and even if they were, the touching of breasts/genitals would only be permitted by court order or with reasonable cause). Technically speaking, my state would be well within its rights to enforce it's current laws on operation of X-ray emitting equipment if it is shown that the operator is not a licensed radiologist, if the use of the device is not for a medical purpose, and if the devices are not inspected and tested on the required schedule. That'd be a $25 fine per person screened, and perhaps a couple of weeks in prison for the operator.
thank you. There was a mandate to create a bureaucracy, and that bureaucracy then made up rules that we all have to follow, based on a mandate. none of this is an actual federal law, except for the existence of the TSA. If the proposed law only defines what the TSA is allowed to do, then it still complies with the federal law, and simply restricts actions that the TSA can perform against people in the state at the time. Someone needs to put reins on this thing, and they abviously cant be trusted to restrain themselves.
I'll bet that the Senators and Reps don't have to go through them...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
there is also a part of the swearing in process of federal legislators where they declare " fuck that shit"
You say this as though gold drops as manna from heaven upon Washington, D.C., and that they then mete that out to those who please them. That is not the case.
The gold comes from the states. States are the foundation of the union, as is indicated in the name of the country, "The United States of America." If states resist the corrupt, unanswerable blather of Washington, D.C., then what financial basis does then the District of Columbia have to oppress the states?
The time is long since past when the corrupt central government enjoyed moral suasion. In modern terms, they have jumped the shark. The time is quite near when the American people, left and right, will pile into their pickups with dogs and axe handles and converge on D.C. to permanently redecorate the place.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Let me start out by saying I hate the TSA too, but the reality is that an airplane that originates in, say Massachussetts that was orignally bound for say, California, could be used as a weapon in, say, New York or Washington, DC. (Anyone remember when that might have happened? Anyone? Bueller?)
So while Texas might criminalize groin frisking in Texas, the Federal government still has the constitutionally valid authority to protect New York from being attacked. It also gets complicated because the airport itself might be on Federal property, as is the case with military installations. And in many cases airports are also partly used for military purposes.
So great spirit, but it's unrealistic to believe that states can just stop ignoring the Fed when they want to. It's also, frankly, treasonous in my opinion. If we really want to stop the TSA, we the people need to do something about it directly. I would love to see an airline traveler strike in protest of the TSA.
I'm reminded of an act of civil disobedience in the UK that I read about. It's common practice to put tolls on bridges there (as it is in many places here). However for logistical reasons motorcycle were exempt from the toll--they were just allowed to drive around a narrow gap on the side of the toll booth. One day the city council decided motorcylists should pay the toll too.
When the day came to implement the toll, the motorcyclists of the city spent the day crossing the bridge both ways and continually getting in line to pay the toll. Now, in the UK motorcyclists are required to wear substantial protective gear. So each motorcyclist pulled up the the booth, stopped their bike, took off both gloves, unizipped their jacket, pulled out their wallet from inside their jacket, paid the toll with a bill, got change, and reversed the process. Nobody did anything illegal, they just went to the toll booth and steadily and safely paid their toll. The average rider took 30 to 45 seconds to pay their toll. Then they looped back around and got in line again.
Traffic, of course was backed up much worse than ever. The very next day, motorcycles no longer had to pay a toll.
So the moral of the story is to legally and safely make compliance so much of a burden on normal operations that the authorities have no choice but to relent.
Keeping terrorists off the planes? You're doing this by all the silliness that the TSA does?
The measures that we had in place would've kept terrorists in the large out in the case of 9/11- they executed a loophole in the system that had the people known what the "nice terrorists" had in mind instead of what they'd all been INDOCTRINATED to do, namely let them have their way and you won't get hurt, they'd have BEATEN THEM TO A BLOODY PULP, much like was basically done with Flight 93.
The ONLY reason we've not had a repeat hasn't been because of the TSA. It's been more because the payoff is not worth the risks of failure. The few "incidents" were where the terrorists would devise another loophole just to get the TSA to restrict our freedoms just that bit further.
You, sir, are a TOOL.
I'm glad a legislator from Alaska is picking up this flag. The usual argument if you don't want to submit to TSA procedures is to "simply not fly." In Alaska (and Hawaii even more so), we just don't have that choice as a reasonable option.
If we in the 49th and 50th states want to travel ever again, we have to submit to TSA rule. In the 48 contiguous states, it's at least slightly reasonable to go by train or car. It takes 3 hours to fly to Seattle from Anchorage... or 5 days to drive.
Let's make all of congress, the senate, and of course, the President and cronies, have to go thru a TSA scanner and pat down every time they want to enter the senate, or the white house, or congress. Let's do this for a month, then lets have a revote on this stuff.
My guess is we'd get rid of all the scanners and pat downs.
After all, the people who make the laws are the one rarely affected by the laws they are making, unless it's something to benefit them.
By the end of the day they would pass another law exempting themselves from the screening.
...is an exemption from senators and representatives from needing to be exposed to the TSA. It's already acceptable for them to be exempt from other laws us little people face on a day to day basis, so I can see it happening. No way that will be extended to the unwashed masses.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
It would be perfect for the FAA to make TX a no-fly zone. The effects of the shutdown would be catastrophic and immediate and maybe the discussion and the source of the problem would lead us out of the morass that 9-11 and our ahole reps got us into.
Wow, I see someone sure must enjoy his taxpayer-funded groping.
TN Sen Rand Paul (yes, Ron's son) was returning to DC for the start of the Senate session in January when he was 'detained' at Nashville's checkpoint for refusing a pat-down after a supposed "anomaly" in the scanner. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71818.html
The TSA agents apparently backpedaled and finally allowed him to go back through the scanner after someone probably mentioned that pesky Constitutional clause about detaining members of Congress enroute to/from the current session.
The consensus guess is that they were trying to hassle him after his / his father's slamming the TSA, but they apparently got their collective noses rubbed in it for their trouble.
The FBI and DEA *do* very much care about state laws.
Federal Law Enforcement Agencies (FBI & DEA) are small with about 14k and 5k agents respectively. Without help from local law enforcement, they can do nothing but make the occasional token raids for show. They are small agencies with tiny budgets, staffed by non-exceptional government employees. These agencies are hard to under-estimate. The DEA could get 100x more agents and they still would have no hope of stopping the 45 Million american pot smokers.
--AC
Oh, yeah, the radiation issue.
Equivalent to 3 MINUTES OF FLIGHT. So if it scares you don't fly, or live in Denver or anywhere above sea level!
That's what they tell people. Given it's not the same kind of radiation that number is meaningless.
There is a simple solution. At each airport, the state should provide a traveler's advocate with superceding authority (yes, above TSA) to allow travelers through security, ignore the "no fly" list for people with common names, allow grannies and cancer patients to avoid groping and disrobing, etc. Any traveler could say "Get the traveler's advocate" and have them there within ten minutes. The advocate applies immediate, common sense judgement of "risk" to minimizing harm to the individual traveler against protecting the general flying population. This would actually help the TSA agents by allowing common sense to prevail over politics and policy.
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
Please sign the petition asking the Whitehouse to release the text and authorizations allowing the TSA to search people.
http://wh.gov/8wD
Only the handful of those against the Police State do.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/senator-rand-paul-detained-refusing-tsa-pat-down-161010280.html
I don't know which flights require TSA screening, but from the FAA's point of view, accepting any money for a plane ride makes the pilot a commercial pilot, which is a whole different licensing category. To get a commercial pilot's license for carrying paying passengers, a private pilot would have to go through additional training, testing, medical examination, drug screening, etc.
In one case, a pilot killed a passenger when he snagged some power lines and plunged his plane into a river. While that was an unfortunate accident, the FAA decided to throw the book at him in part because the pilot had accepted a token payment of $8 from the passenger.
The TSAs no-nonsense cock patting has seen 9/11s happening on average once every hundred years. If not for Bush's sage idea to form the TSA, I'm pretty sure we'd be seeing 9/11s every week. With such a record, I'm wondering why we don't have the TSA take care of all of our security needs. Think about how young men tend to see gang membership as being a macho thing... How macho are they going to look when having their balls cupped by another man? Will they be able to get drunk on the tiny quantities of liquids allowed in those plastic bags?
We know from watching movies like the Untouchables that lawmen need to set aside due process for a greater good. The TSA already has an astonishing reputation for being unaccountable - perhaps more so than the FBI, so let's get the TSA out there on the streets! Having the TSA patrolling will drastically cut crime, and give citizens the thrilling sensation of being a character in Deus Ex.
The TSA could also help stem the tide of gay marriage. Have TSA agents pat down everyone entering churches. Gays will obviously become midly aroused when burly and patriotic (and completely straight) agents tug on their cocks in the name of national security! I made a song we can sing when the agents capture a gay! Once they twitch, burn the witch!
Death to Jews! I'm Rick Santorum and I approve this message.
That's like saying a state trooper can't stop an FBI agent on "official business" if that agent is swerving and determined to be drunk. The supremacy clause doesn't necessarily bar states from enacting laws that don't directly contradict. A law stating that you can't can sexually assault someone with a definition of what constitutes an assault, doesn't bar the federal government from doing it's job.
The real question will come in not in Supremacy by in jurisdiction. Are airports federal property and\or federal jurisdiction? That's the real question. Maybe that question has already been answered, IANAL.
I8-D
TSA serves an important function, i.e. keeping terrorists off our airplanes!
Actually since I bought my new rucksack there have been no terrorists board a plane in the U.S.
Therefore my rucksack is keeping terrorists off airplanes
Preventing them from doing their jobs is a recipe for disaster.
I'm usually pro-civil liberties, and I think DHS banning the UK teens for their tweets was stupid, but TSA does an important job, and they are worried about your safety, not getting their jollies by feeling up people. Do you think the same of your doctor?
My doctor feels me for my safety.
You are alleging that TSA feel me up for the safety of others, not mine. Unless you're suggesting they're looking for a bomb that's been strapped to me without my knowledge?
Oh, yeah, the radiation issue.
Equivalent to 3 MINUTES OF FLIGHT. So if it scares you don't fly, or live in Denver or anywhere above sea level!
If the scanners are calibrated, if the dose is even, if the scanners are operated by trained radiographers.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
You can wish that all of the Sharon Cissna's across the country have to endure TSA if you want, but quite frankly, I'll gladly accept her help in reigning in TSA (or more accurately, "I'll gladly do whatever I can to help her reign in TSA.").
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
I fly 3 or 4 times a year and this past weekend on my way home from vacation I had to go through a backscatter x-ray machine. It's the 1st time I've had to go through anything other than a standard metal detector. Had I refused, the sign said I would be subjected to an "intensive pat down"...
It just makes you feel like a criminal, the experience really pissed me off.
I was speaking with my boss about an hour ago about airport security. My point to him was that 9/11 won't be repeated as long as the pilots leave the cockpit doors locked. What's the worst that could happen, a "terrorist" got a knife or gun on the plane and kills a few people before being subdued? Yes, that would be a terrible event but we're not talking about mass casulties.
I mentioned budget cuts and smaller government as well, saying the TSA would be the first on my chopping block if I were in charge. I'd go back to standard metal detectors and possibly employ a few bomb sniffing dogs at each hub.
All that TSA money would be better spent on something like education.
We'll see no more jumbo jet missles into buildings. If a terrorist wants to kill lots of people at once, they'd blow themselves up in a public location such as a restaurant or a Walmart.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
It's a smart strategy, but it only works in a country full of retards..
You entire post was referring to the US, right? Your last sentence was redundant.
Once you arrive at the airport, however, that is interstate travel. A very different beast, and one that is not a protected power of the federal government.
Not to mention that you are assuming that the travel is interstate. My home state of Alaska is big enough that quite a lot of flying is done within the state itself, and in many cases, that's the ONLY reasonable way to get from point A to point B. For example, I live in Anchorage. My job is managing a network 500 miles west in the village of Bethel. There are no roads between Anchorage and Bethel, so the only way to get from here to there is by airplane or by boat...and in winter, you can't even get there by boat. Also, what about the possibility of flying from a particular state into a foreign country without landing in -- or even overflying -- a second state? Does that meet the legal definition of "interstate?"
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
TSA serves an important function, i.e. it pretends to keep terrorists off our airplanes, while treating almost everyone like one!
There, fixed that for you.
It's good to know that at least SOME legislators somewhere believe there is an issue with (what I call) a government capitulating to the desires of the terrorists to ruin our society.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The Dakota Territory didn't have any disagreements, the feds split them apart.
You seem to have missed the TSA's top 10 list for 2011 that they just released.
Glaringly absent, for the 10th year in a row, is one single terrorist.
The things they DID catch would have been stopped with pre-911 screening (aka the TSA extensions to that process are useless).
The TSA does not do an important job. We know this because no terrorists have been caught, and no terrorists have moved on to easier (non-TSA) targets, like... water reservoirs, subways, trains, the power grid, oil storage facilities...
Meanwhile, consider having a TSA day in your local elementary schools. Have a uniformed TSA agent provide an "enhanced pat down" to every child in the school for the purpose of demonstration, so they know what to expect when they reach a real checkpoint.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
Regulations promulgated by agencies under the authority delegated to them by Congress have the force of law, including preemptive effects.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
Or, how about both. Support locally, vote Federally.
1. Attractive woman doing the pat-down to the males 2. give a gift card for the woman 3. dont touch the children 4 ??? 5 PROFIT
\n.\n
Did anyone else notice how it took a congress critter getting offended to really start getting anything done about this? As for myself and my family we haven't flown at all since 9-11 and we aren't going to until the security theater is shut down. Hell we're *from* NY and we're not scared of "terrorists" or whatever other kind of bogeyman the fed makes up next week...
C|N>K
Why does every Republican except Dick Cheney hate gays? Simple - Cheney's daughter is gay, so it's personal to him.
Most people have a very hard time with empathy, and politicians seem to be some of the worst.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
They are free to continue searching all they want, and the states are free to toss them in the clink on assault charges. Alternatively, the states can ban all state and local police from in any way helping the TSA and make sure their citizens know it very well.
That means if the TSA agent tries to feel your kid up, you kick his crotch and the cops just laugh.
does this mean that no law will ever be unconstitutional again, or even challenged as such? If the law that was passed and signed created an agency legally and constitutionally, then everything this agency does follows the constitution, and by this logic, cannot be challenged ( or can but has no chance ) .
The TSA ADAMANTLY claims that you can't see any fine detail in the backscatter scans... yet they could identify a scar?
Do you think the same of your doctor?
Some people do, and in some cases it is warranted, just like with TSA.
Oh, and we actually have a legally protected right to refuse treatment of any sort for whatever reason or for no reason at all, and it is considered unethical by the medical profession itself to withhold other treatments in retaliation.
Mod this UP!!! We don't even need any new laws. What the TSA is doing is sexual abuse. Just start to arrest the TSA agents. I doubt the feds can claim their law authorizing an agency somehow pre-empts sexual abuse laws!!!! BTW, you can not give your consent for children, so need for anyone to raise consent as a defense.
Then it would be interesting to see what TSA would say.
The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution states that, when there is a conflict, Federal law always trumps State law.
The federal government doesn't own the airports or airlines. "The State of Texas hereby withdraws all licensing, support, and allowances for any airport or airline within its borders."
So while yes, the fed may be able to say the TSA must exist in all airports, the state can say no airports may exist within its borders. If the fed really wants to push this, the state can make a constitutional amendment. Little known fact: State constitutions override federal law. Only treaties and the like can go above that then. So there are ways for states to fight back against unwanted federal interference if the will of the people is strong enough.
Frankly, I'd love to see Texas go toe to toe with the TSA on this issue. Whether it passed or failed, it would generate a ton of negative publicity for the feds and put them on the defensive for a long time.
Texas (or any other state) could always secede from the US, making the TSA persona non grata within their sovereign airports.
http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm
They used to do just that, it took the 19th amendment to fix that. The TSA falls under that nebulous and overly used interstate commerce clause, yet the TSA believes they have the right to do this on in state flights and basically threatened other funding if Texas did not capitulate. The states can amend the federal constitution by themselves with not input from the federal government via Constitutional Convention they need a 3/4th majority to get it done. This method has never been used but is spelled out. As things stand were this seems like the only non radical way to get real reform of the federal monstrosity we currently live with.
No sir I dont like it.
Of course, you don't have to go through the scanners if you're wearing the member of congress lapel pin
Textually, I made the assumption of interstate travel, just because its the most likely (as the ticket purchase is most likely interstate commerce) but yes, I've myself traveled intrastate a number of times.
I'm not with the FAA (or a lawyer), but if you transit airspace to any other state (and a foreign country is another state; it just isn't a state of the US) you'd be traveling interstate.
The Supremacy clause is currently in vogue with Constitutional scholars and Federalists. These same people tend to neglect the 10th Amendment since it was created as a check on Federal power.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.
I'm from NYC also, and although I have flown internationally since 9-11, I won't any more. Between the ridiculous "security" routines by people who obviously were on welfare last week, the disgusting seats, the atrocious meals, and the bedbugs (yes, I got one on my Kindle, fortunately detected it before it got loose at the hotel) -- I have NO reason to fly anywhere. I can drive to Cape Cod if I want exotic surroundings, thank you very much. People used to come to NYC because it is wonderful. It still is. We love our visitors -- but what they go through to get here is amazing.
Texas becoming a no-fly zone would cripple the US because of the large number of flights that pass through massive hubs at Dallas-Forth Worth International Airport, George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston and other major hub airports.
Once again, just as with prostitution, efforts to combat "IP" "piracy", Prohibition, and the War on Drugs, (essentially the same war, BTW,) our so-called leaders attack the wrong side of the problem.
Instead of worrying about people bringing anything onto the plane that could be used to hijack, the solution is basic security. Redesign aircraft so the following basic principles are true, and you can toss 99% of this so-called security (in truth, security theater) right out the window.
1. Make it physically impossible to access the cockpit from the passenger compartment. I don't mean with a locked door, or pair of doors. I mean, NO DOOR OR WINDOW OF ANY KIND BETWEEN FLIGHT DECK AND PASSENGER SPACE. Pilots and crew enter and exit during crew changes through different doors from those in the passenger compartment.
2. Place the passenger compartment in a Faraday cage, metaphorically and literally. Complete (except as follows) communications blackout with the rest of the universe at any frequency.
3. One way communication of information from flight deck to passenger space crew allowed. Information such as, "Put on your seat-belts." and You may move about the cabin. As a peripheral benefit, passengers can use their electronic devices at any point before pushing back from the gate, to after landing, since no radio signal will be able to get in or out.
4. A one-way, one-time per flight communication link shall be provided for passenger-space flight crew. The communication system will operate something like this: each crew member will have a key to operate the device. Two keys will be needed to activate the system, kind of like in War Games, for missile launches. ("Turn your key, SIR!") When keys are turned, and a button is pushed, it sends a signal to a device that will then, after a short, but random-length delay, to ensure no "part of the minute, or part of the hour," etc. secret signal system could be used, an indicator to the pilots illuminates, and an audible alarm is activated, indicating that a situation exists requiring the plane be landed as soon as possible due to some emergency, fire, medical, etc. Once the device is activated, it cannot be shut off until the plane lands. The shut-off mechanism is accessible only from the OUTSIDE of the plane. Moreover, the keys cannot be removed once turned, so it will be simplicity itself to know whose key activated the alarm, for accountability (they'll have serial numbers, and be issued in a controlled fashion). Limiting this communications should make it essentially impossible for anyone who brings a weapon into the passenger compartment to direct the plane, since no one in the passenger space can communicate with anyone on the ground, or anyone on the flight deck.
These measures alone would have prevented the September 11th attacks, along with nearly all previous hijackings. Bear in mind that the people in the passenger space will also have no way of knowing where they are, save what the pilots tell them. I would also eliminate windows, or make them sufficiently tough to see-through so that no one in that space could try to time a bomb to go off at a particular time, to bring a plane down in a particular place.
5. As a further measure, I might even have a person in the plane remotely controlling a trailing plane, a drone essentially or perhaps towed by a line, (via some uninterpretable, un-spoofable connection,) such as have data sent via multiple channels using SSMA/JRSC techniques, that would carry the baggage. That is, not let people carry their bags on-board with them.
The passenger experience would go like this. They'd show up and check their bags, that would be x-ray'ed as always, and be allowed to carry a VERY small bag onboard with them, just big enough to allow medicine, a book, etc. They'd file into the plane, the pilots would jump in the front (and oh by the way, the pilots don't see the passengers, and vice-versa,) the check bags would be loaded while this is happening, it would push back fr