Rand Paul & TSA

Someone forgot to tell him that being a senator does not exempt him from routine security procedures to board commercial airliners. :sigh: Politicians...always think they're better than the rest of us. His only recourse lies in getting 50 of his senatorial colleagues and 218 in the House to change the laws which require this.
 
Ron Levy said:
Someone forgot to tell him that being a senator does not exempt him from routine security procedures to board commercial airliners. :sigh: Politicians...always think they're better than the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Ron,

If I'm not mistaken here, the issue is that the TSA detainedhim (that's arguable - he was placed in a box and told that he could not leave - I'll leave it to the lawyers to define detention). If he was detained, then it may (or may not) be a Constitutional issue. THat's for the courts to decide.

The bigger issue may be that he was told that a reason he was singled out for a pat-down in addition to the body scan was that he used a cellphone. IF so, that's retaliatory for something that doesn't aaffect security.

In a conversation that I had today with a three-striper at TSA/DFW about their pre-check program, I was told that we "only have some, not all, rights at the checkpoint"....
 
It will be interesting to see if there is any fall out... It is against Federal Law to interfere with the passage of a Senator...
So, who has the bigger cajones - the TSA or an Article in the Federal Law that has been on the books since the 1700's specifically prohibiting what happened?
I wonder who chairs the finance committee that has to vote the appropriations for the TSA/HSA?

OK, I peeked - It is Orin Hatch (R-Utah) who is the ranking member... In spite of the R's and D's taking delight in urinating in the other party's oatmeal, I suspect there will not be enthusiastic support for the TSA by the D's on this one as Senators of both parties have to use the commercial airlines many times a month...

Get out the popcorn - this could be a good one...

denny-o
 
Last edited:
the TSA or an Article in the Federal Law that has been on the books since the 1700's
Click to expand...

The Constitution is a bit more than a "federal law." Of course, the same clown who created the TSA called it "just a piece of paper."
 
wsuffa said:
Ron,

If I'm not mistaken here, the issue is that the TSA detainedhim (that's arguable - he was placed in a box and told that he could not leave - I'll leave it to the lawyers to define detention). If he was detained, then it may (or may not) be a Constitutional issue. THat's for the courts to decide.

The bigger issue may be that he was told that a reason he was singled out for a pat-down in addition to the body scan was that he used a cellphone. IF so, that's retaliatory for something that doesn't aaffect security.

In a conversation that I had today with a three-striper at TSA/DFW about their pre-check program, I was told that we "only have some, not all, rights at the checkpoint"....
Click to expand...

I take it that you've never seen any of the several movies where the bad guys use a cellphone to detonate their evil devices.
 
Ron Levy said:
His only recourse lies in getting 50 of his senatorial colleagues and 218 in the House to change the laws which require this.
Click to expand...
and I sincerely hope he does. The creation of this monstrosity of a bureaucracy in the knee jerk reaction to 9/11 is to me one of the saddest chapters of our Republic.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I take it that you've never seen any of the several movies where the bad guys use a cellphone to detonate their evil devices.
Click to expand...

Using a cellphone at the checkpoint (by a sitting Senator) equates to a terrorist, how? And how does a full grope/frisk mitigate any such threat?

via Tapatalk
 
Dr. O said:
It will be interesting to see if there is any fall out... It is against Federal Law to interfere with the passage of a Senator...
So, who has the bigger cajones - the TSA or an Article in the Federal Law that has been on the books since the 1700's specifically prohibiting what happened?
Click to expand...

Good point - absent a constitutional amendment, Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. constitution supersedes any TSA rules and regulations because of the clause in this sentence regarding senators and representatives:
"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
​
However, the TSA has in the past also violated diplomatic immunity of traveling diplomats with impunity, so at this point I'd say they have become an unstoppable law unto themselves.
 
Last edited:
wsuffa said:
Using a cellphone at the checkpoint (by a sitting Senator) equates to a terrorist, how? And how does a full grope/frisk mitigate any such threat?

via Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Very often security includes simpleton rules that cannot be broken. I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it is. Just have a simple conversation with any "hardened" law enforcement professional. Engage in humorous banter - guaranteed that over 2/3rds of the jokes don't elicit a response.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Good point - absent a constitutional amendment, Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. constitution supersedes any TSA rules and regulations because of the clause in this sentence regarding senators and representatives:
"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
​
However, the TSA has in the past also violated diplomatic immunity of traveling diplomats with impunity, so at this point I'd say they have become an unstoppable law unto themselves.
Click to expand...

Silly Jim. You think the Constitution actually applies to the US anymore. :mad2:

Seriously, this is a flat violation of the Constitution by the Executive Branch against the Legislative Branch. Not that it will matter. :mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2:
 
Pres. Obama said, 'we're not going after prosecuting the transgressions of the past administration'

ooops...wrong thread
 
Jaybird180 said:
Very often security includes simpleton rules that cannot be broken. I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it is. Just have a simple conversation with any "hardened" law enforcement professional. Engage in humorous banter - guaranteed that over 2/3rds of the jokes don't elicit a response.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to engage in an argument here.

What I will say - having been through TSA screening hundreds of times (literally) over several years - is that this is the kind of retaliation that TSA frequently engages in at checkpoints. I can almost guarantee you that using a cellphone does NOT require a full body search. If it did, I'd have been body searched many times over. That hasn't happened.

ANd they do so because they can get away with it. The same attitude that many cops take of "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride". TSA is NOT law enforcement, though many think they are. The agency has also specifically kept their policies & procedures from review - heck, they won't even allow the backscatter radiation body scanners to be tested. The abuses are becoming more and more known

Frankly, if the Paul event helps to reign them in, all the better.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Very often security includes simpleton rules that cannot be broken. I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it is. Just have a simple conversation with any "hardened" law enforcement professional. Engage in humorous banter - guaranteed that over 2/3rds of the jokes don't elicit a response.
Click to expand...

But what do the TSA pat down / scans have to do with security? For the most part, the people who have the most access to the aircraft and would be in the best position to "do something" are not screened at all.

Baggage handlers running a drug smuggling ring.
Aircraft cleaner bringing a girlfriend to work to show her the inside of an airplane
Kid dying after sneaking into a wheel well
And those are just the ones that I happened to read about.

There is no security.

But, do you think that if he wasn't such a big shot, he would have made it through the system as easily as he did? Do you think you or I could have refused the pat down and still ended up on an airplane? These are not hard and fast rules. These are "whatever we think we can get away with" rules.
 
PilotAlan said:
Silly Jim. You think the Constitution actually applies to the US anymore. :mad2:

Seriously, this is a flat violation of the Constitution by the Executive Branch against the Legislative Branch. Not that it will matter. :mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2:
Click to expand...

To be fair, the TSA could try to claim Paul was engaged in either a felony or breach of the peace, and therefore they were within their rights and duty to temprarily hold Paul.
 
It's called security theater. It is all a show to make the sheeple feel safe.

I believe that if you are not free to proceed forward or leave, then you are detained.
 
Ron Levy said:
Someone forgot to tell him that being a senator does not exempt him from routine security procedures to board commercial airliners. :sigh: Politicians...always think they're better than the rest of us. His only recourse lies in getting 50 of his senatorial colleagues and 218 in the House to change the laws which require this.
Click to expand...

Someone forgot to tell Bush II that a government police force is unconstitional and a waste of money.
 
This was done on purpose by Paul. He has spoke many times about how the TSA is crazy. The most recent is when they were checking a 6 year old. Paul and his father intend to fight for the U.S. Constitution. This is one part of their larger plan. I am glad I voted for him. Go Senator Paul.

TSA is going to get put in their place for this. He knew exactly what they were going to do and he knew how to fight them back.
 
Jim Logajan said:
To be fair, the TSA could try to claim Paul was engaged in either a felony or breach of the peace, and therefore they were within their rights and duty to temprarily hold Paul.
Click to expand...

Since the TSA isn't legally allowed to have power to detain anyone it shouldn't matter what they say.

But the government doesn't care about the law since 9/12/01
 
Ron Levy said:
His only recourse lies in getting 50 of his senatorial colleagues and 218 in the House to change the laws which require this.
Click to expand...

And this would be a bad thing:D
 
gcd89 said:
You know what's weird. The right wing accuses Obama of being "Hitler" but have no problem with an American SS in our airports
Click to expand...

:no:
I'm as conservative as they come. I railed against the creation of TSA (and DHS) at the beginning, and have not stopped since.
I believe the great majority of conservatives I know were against TSA, it was a creation of the Washington mentality.

Conservatives understand the federal government does not do anything well. Anything at all. I defy anyone to point to anything the federal government does well.
So its functions should be limited to those things that must be done by a federal government, and cannot be done by the states, local governments, or individuals acting in their own interest.
Ironically, that's exactly what was intended in the Constitution, when the powers of the federal government were specifically enumerated (before the Commerce Clause became a cornucopia of endless federal prerogatives).
 
wsuffa said:
If I'm not mistaken here, the issue is that the TSA detainedhim (that's arguable - he was placed in a box and told that he could not leave - I'll leave it to the lawyers to define detention).
Click to expand...
He was not detained, and he was not "placed in a box and told that he could not leave." He was told he'd have to get X-rayed or patted down if he wanted to enter the security area and board his flight. He declined, and was permitted to leave.

The bigger issue may be that he was told that a reason he was singled out for a pat-down in addition to the body scan was that he used a cellphone. IF so, that's retaliatory for something that doesn't aaffect security.
Click to expand...
He was told he had to get patted down because he set off the metal detector. That's standard procedure.
 
Dr. O said:
It will be interesting to see if there is any fall out... It is against Federal Law to interfere with the passage of a Senator...
Click to expand...
That's not true. Federal law requires Senators and Congressmen to go through the security procedures when entering the security area of a commercial airport, and the US Constitution does not repeat not override that. All it does is prevent them from being arrested if they get caught carrying a prohibited item.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Good point - absent a constitutional amendment, Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. constitution supersedes any TSA rules and regulations because of the clause in this sentence regarding senators and representatives:
"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
​
Click to expand...
As any professor of constitutional law (not to mention the US Supreme Court) will tell you, that does not permit them to bypass normal security procedures at airports. Big difference between being checked for prohibited items and being arrested.
 
Folks, get off your high horses. TSA was operating within the law and the constitution. Ask any law professor or judge if you need confirmation. Maybe if Senator Paul had attended the law school at Duke instead of the medical school he'd have known that himself.
 
gcd89 said:
This.

You know what's weird. The right wing accuses Obama of being "Hitler" but have no problem with an American SS in our airports
Click to expand...
Oh yes we do...
And I was NOT a fan of Bush, yet some people would lump me in that camp.

Ryan
 
9/11 guaranteed that even if someone got on board to hijack an aircraft, the passengers and crew will rip you to shreds with their fingernails if they have to.

"Just cooperate" hijackings of the 70s and 80s died that day.

The guy who jumped the underwear bomber, recently sued the airline for medical expenses and he probably deserves every penny.

Neither TSA nor the airline was effective for that one, thus the "I'm going to run my fingers under your waistband" gropes. They won't catch the next one, either. How many billions are we up to now?
 
Ron Levy said:
Folks, get off your high horses. TSA was operating within the law and the constitution. Ask any law professor or judge if you need confirmation. Maybe if Senator Paul had attended the law school at Duke instead of the medical school he'd have known that himself.
Click to expand...
The TSA violates the Constitution on a daily basis. It's NOT operating within the highest law of the land. We're dealing with a generation of law professors and judges who do not follow, nor seek to understand the original intent, but choose to re-interpret it according to their own perverse desires. There ARE Constitutional attorneys and scholars who DO believe that this stuff is wrong.

Ryan
 
RyanShort1 said:
The TSA violates the Constitution on a daily basis. It's NOT operating within the highest law of the land.
Click to expand...
Really? I'd be interested to see the US Supreme Court ruling which says that -- the USSC being, per Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the final arbiter of what "the highest law of the land" actually means. Absent such an finding, the TSA is operating legally whether we (or Rand Paul) like it or not.
 
Ron Levy said:
Right. And he was permitted to leave -- just not to enter the security area.
Click to expand...
Sorry Ron, but you're off base on this one.
You are NOT free to leave once the screening process has begun.
From the TSA's own blog:
Will you receive a $10,000.00 fine if you opt out of screening all together and leave the checkpoint? While TSA has the legal authority to levy a civil penalty of up to $11,000.00 for cases such as this, each case is determined on the individual circumstances of the situation.
Click to expand...
TSA clearly takes the position that once you begin screening, 49CFR1540 prohibits you from leaving. That's a detention.
 
Ron Levy said:
Really? I'd be interested to see the US Supreme Court ruling which says that -- the USSC being, per Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the final arbiter of what "the highest law of the land" actually means. Absent such an finding, the TSA is operating legally whether we (or Rand Paul) like it or not.
Click to expand...
Well, "keep," "bear," and "shall not be Infringed" are blatantly mis-interpreted by Judges who swore to uphold the Constitution with regularity, and of course by our friends at the TSA as well. A properly educated two year old should be able to understand that. Not to mention others...
I have NO problem with the captain of the plane saying no weapons allowed, but the feds breaking their oath to uphold the Constitution? Yeah, I have a BIG problem with that.

Ryan
 
Ron Levy said:
Folks, get off your high horses. TSA was operating within the law and the constitution. Ask any law professor or judge if you need confirmation.
Click to expand...

Ron, I've worked search and seizure law for 20 years, I know search and seizure better than 95% of the lawyers out there.

The supposed justification for the search is that you consented by buying the airplane ticket. However, the bedrock principle of consent is that it must be voluntary.
Additionally, in order for consent to be voluntary, it must be freely given, it must be able to be withdrawn at any time, and there cannot be punishment for withdrawal of that consent.
Even an 'intimidating atmosphere' (like too many cops standing around) can be enough to destroy the consent to search, and that's much less outright threats that "we'll fine you $10,000 if you don't comply" (i.e., withdraw consent).

I guess my state should pass a law that if you consent to allow the cops to search your house or car, and then change your mind, we'll fine you $10,000. Do you think that would pass Constitutional muster?

What the TSA is doing flies in the face of 30 years of Constitutional precedent. I fail to understand how an innocent traveler has less 4th Amendment protection that a criminal caught red handed.
 
Ron Levy said:
Really? I'd be interested to see the US Supreme Court ruling which says that -- the USSC being, per Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the final arbiter of what "the highest law of the land" actually means. Absent such an finding, the TSA is operating legally whether we (or Rand Paul) like it or not.
Click to expand...

Actually, the US Supreme Court has not ruled on the legality of the current processes in place. So it is not factually correct to state that the TSA in operating Constitutionally according to Marbury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top