TX Bill to Make TSA Pat-Down Illegal

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

from the article:

"Ironically, a TSA nullification bill was filed in the Texas legislature last month, a bill that would ban the full body scanners and make it a crime to preform invasive searches. The legislation would make it a criminal offense to:

““as part of a search performed to grant access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: (A) searches another person without probable cause to believe the person committed an offense; and (B) touches the anus, sexual organ, or breasts of the other person, including touching through clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person.””

2

More, and it turns out that airports are under state authority, not federal.

"HB 1937 includes the following:

(3) as part of a search performed to grant access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(A) searches another person without probable cause to believe the person committed an offense; and

(B) touches the anus, sexual organ, or breasts of the other person, including touching through clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person.

(f) â?¦. An offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a state jail felony.

Both bills empower the Texas Attorney General to bring suit in court."

…

“The TSA will likely challenge such a law, but the Texas legislature stands on solid ground. Local governments control airports and no enumerated power in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to regulate them. Under the Tenth Amendment, airport operation falls under state jurisdiction.”

3

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
More, and it turns out that airports are under state authority, not federal.

"HB 1937 includes the following:

(3) as part of a search performed to grant access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(A) searches another person without probable cause to believe the person committed an offense; and

(B) touches the anus, sexual organ, or breasts of the other person, including touching through clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person.

(f) â?¦. An offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a state jail felony.

Both bills empower the Texas Attorney General to bring suit in court."

…

“The TSA will likely challenge such a law, but the Texas legislature stands on solid ground. Local governments control airports and no enumerated power in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to regulate them. Under the Tenth Amendment, airport operation falls under state jurisdiction.”
[/quote]

Interstate commerce clause, general welfare clause, that is all.

4

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
More, and it turns out that airports are under state authority, not federal.

"HB 1937 includes the following:

(3) as part of a search performed to grant access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(A) searches another person without probable cause to believe the person committed an offense; and

(B) touches the anus, sexual organ, or breasts of the other person, including touching through clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person.

(f) �¢?�¦. An offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a state jail felony.

Both bills empower the Texas Attorney General to bring suit in court."

…

“The TSA will likely challenge such a law, but the Texas legislature stands on solid ground. Local governments control airports and no enumerated power in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to regulate them. Under the Tenth Amendment, airport operation falls under state jurisdiction.”
[/quote]

Interstate commerce clause, general welfare clause, that is all.

[/quote]

4th amendment, that is all.

5

I thought it was already understood that the constitution is just a “god-damned piece of paper?”

6

Nullification at work. Thomas Jefferson would be proud of Texas.

7

How about I invoke my own clause, we could call it the Maximus clause.

It will state that during a TSA patdown, you are entitled to (but not limited to) ripping a wet fart, dropping a steaming turd in your pants, or wearing 3 day old underwear and socks with crotch rot so bad, the TSA agent’s eyes will water in no more than 5 seconds.

While the TSA might view this as harboring a weapon of mass destruction, my attorney and I will argue that these are bodily fluids and excrement that cannot be controlled due to the nature of me maintaining my health. I will carry a doctor note specifying that it is not considered healthy to hold in such materials, as they are waste by-products created naturally by the body.

What say you all?

8

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
How about I invoke my own clause, we could call it the Maximus clause.

It will state that during a TSA patdown, you are entitled to (but not limited to) ripping a wet fart, dropping a steaming turd in your pants, or wearing 3 day old underwear and socks with crotch rot so bad, the TSA agent’s eyes will water in no more than 5 seconds.

While the TSA might view this as harboring a weapon of mass destruction, my attorney and I will argue that these are bodily fluids and excrement that cannot be controlled due to the nature of me maintaining my health. I will carry a doctor note specifying that it is not considered healthy to hold in such materials, as they are waste by-products created naturally by the body.

What say you all?[/quote]

It’s either that or work up a boner before the pat down then talk suggestively to the person patting you down.

9

God Bless Texas.

10

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
How about I invoke my own clause, we could call it the Maximus clause.

It will state that during a TSA patdown, you are entitled to (but not limited to) ripping a wet fart, dropping a steaming turd in your pants, or wearing 3 day old underwear and socks with crotch rot so bad, the TSA agent’s eyes will water in no more than 5 seconds.

While the TSA might view this as harboring a weapon of mass destruction, my attorney and I will argue that these are bodily fluids and excrement that cannot be controlled due to the nature of me maintaining my health. I will carry a doctor note specifying that it is not considered healthy to hold in such materials, as they are waste by-products created naturally by the body.

What say you all?[/quote]

It’s either that or work up a boner before the pat down then talk suggestively to the person patting you down.[/quote]

I was thinking about adding that, but I saw some of those TSA agents, and I don’t know that I can work up a boner looking at people like that. That would require overdosing on Viagra and maybe watching a porno on the way to the airport.

Seriously, some of those people look like they came from science fiction movies.

11

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
How about I invoke my own clause, we could call it the Maximus clause.

It will state that during a TSA patdown, you are entitled to (but not limited to) ripping a wet fart, dropping a steaming turd in your pants, or wearing 3 day old underwear and socks with crotch rot so bad, the TSA agent’s eyes will water in no more than 5 seconds.

While the TSA might view this as harboring a weapon of mass destruction, my attorney and I will argue that these are bodily fluids and excrement that cannot be controlled due to the nature of me maintaining my health. I will carry a doctor note specifying that it is not considered healthy to hold in such materials, as they are waste by-products created naturally by the body.

What say you all?[/quote]

It’s either that or work up a boner before the pat down then talk suggestively to the person patting you down.[/quote]

I was thinking about adding that, but I saw some of those TSA agents, and I don’t know that I can work up a boner looking at people like that. That would require overdosing on Viagra and maybe watching a porno on the way to the airport.

Seriously, some of those people look like they came from science fiction movies. [/quote]

The other down side is that one can backfire.

12

True, they might like what you’re packin’.

13

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It’s either that or work up a boner before the pat down then talk suggestively to the person patting you down.[/quote]

I got out of a prostate exam like that once!

14

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I thought it was already understood that the constitution is just a “god-damned piece of paper?”[/quote]

This is the “take home” comment boys & girls!

15

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I thought it was already understood that the constitution is just a “god-damned piece of paper?”[/quote]

This is the “take home” comment boys & girls![/quote]

That is simply not true.

There is a constitution, ot else around 80% of all that the ferderal government does would be ilegal.

However, that cannot be, because if that were the case, the very same people who do this would have no authority at all, even when you play by their own rules.

That is why I have come to the conclusion that the only possible explanation is that the founding fathers intended to build an elected federal executive dictatorship by cleverly hiding two clauses within the constitution which derogate all the rest of that fluff, namely the insterstate commerce claise and the general welfare clause.

Sneaky, cunning bastards.

16

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I thought it was already understood that the constitution is just a “god-damned piece of paper?”[/quote]

This is the “take home” comment boys & girls![/quote]

That is simply not true.

There is a constitution, ot else around 80% of all that the ferderal government does would be ilegal.

However, that cannot be, because if that were the case, the very same people who do this would have no authority at all, even when you play by their own rules.

That is why I have come to the conclusion that the only possible explanation is that the founding fathers intended to build an elected federal executive dictatorship by cleverly hiding two clauses within the constitution which derogate all the rest of that fluff, namely the insterstate commerce claise and the general welfare clause.

Sneaky, cunning bastards.

[/quote]

IMO…Hamilton, Jay, and the their side was attempting to do exactly that…and succeded.

18

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

4th amendment, that is all.[/quote]

The Fourth Amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

Key word: “unreasonable”. Are the searches at issue unreasonable under the circumstances?

Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t - but the inclusion of the word “unreasonable” means that the desperately wanted absolutism doesn’t exist.

Moreover, air traffic is under the purview of federal regulation because it involves transporting people and things in interstate commerce. In fact, it’s almost definitionally interstate - that is largely the point of air travel, to move something from one state to another. Its activities almost exlcusively cross state borders.

Nothing new here - it’s the same kind of jurisdictional coverage maritime ports got before planes were invented.

And to think that air travel - given its national security implications - has to be left to the initiatives of individual states is laughable. Are we going to let New York have a different policy for checking bags and people for security than Iowa, and both of them different from California? Are we going to have 50 different airport protocols? Are we going to have one state where you take off not have something illegal to carry in air transit (say, a Bowie knife) but the state where you land make it a criminal offense to have on you?

What is it with libertarians being so immune to common sense?

And last I checked, Texas was still bound by the Supremacy Clause. Thus, unless they can challenge the law as facially unconstitutional and win, they are bound by it. Nullification is a fantasy.

19

Oh, and one other problem - Texas can’t authorize the Texas Attorney General to sue the federal government for a violation of a state’s criminal statute.

20

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

from the article:

"Ironically, a TSA nullification bill was filed in the Texas legislature last month, a bill that would ban the full body scanners and make it a crime to preform invasive searches. The legislation would make it a criminal offense to:

““as part of a search performed to grant access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: (A) searches another person without probable cause to believe the person committed an offense; and (B) touches the anus, sexual organ, or breasts of the other person, including touching through clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person.””[/quote]

The state can pass that law making it a crime for an individual to do those things, however an organization should have the right to require anything they want for admittance. They should be able to deny admittance, unless we can argue that flying in a plane is under the right to “liberty”. Plus it is a risk to national security as a plane can be used as a weapon against others.

If they can require a breathalizer or oyu lose your license, they can require that you strip naked in front of a panel of 12. But they can make it a crime to be part of such a panel.