TX Moves to Clash with TSA Patdowns

[DReynolds]

Texas House Bans Offensive Security Pat-Downs

http://www.examiner.com/manhattan-co...ocks-or-breast

[DReynolds]

Want to see a spectacle? Imagine a couple Texas law enforcement officers arresting Federal TSA agents in a Texas airport for groping and sexual misconduct. The Feds will claim Texas does not have jurisdiction. Texas, I'd imagine, would not cave.

[Potemkin]

[Bri2301]

I'm not saying that there are never any offensive or intrusive patdowns. However, in the last ten years of traveling, usually on a weekly basis, I haven't had an issue with the TSA folks. I've noticed the gamut of your standard employees, some glad to be at work, others obviously putting in their eight hours, some surly, some firendly.

With the various issues that the Great State of Texas faces today, I wonder if the Legislature couldn't have put that time to more valuable use.

Jeff B

[leistb]

Because of this letter, Texas pulled the bill from the Senate floor. The letter essentially said in the absence of TSA, the FAA would have created a no fly zone with Texas and would have disallowed flights from or to the state.

It is now officially okay to Mess With Texas.

[Potemkin]

Originally Posted by leistb

Because of this letter, Texas pulled the bill from the Senate floor. The letter essentially said in the absence of TSA, the FAA would have created a no fly zone with Texas and would have disallowed flights from or to the state.

It is now officially okay to Mess With Texas.

Yes, but no one else had the cojones to introduce, and pass such a Bill.

[rryan]

Dewhurst is a P*ssy. Always has been.

[Potemkin]

Originally Posted by rryan

Dewhurst is a P*ssy. Always has been.

Dan Patrick. He has sure stirred up the chickens in the coop since he was elected.

[Potemkin]

[flourbug]

This is getting interesting.

The eyes of the nation are on Texas.

[rryan]

Originally Posted by Potemkin

Dan Patrick. He has sure stirred up the chickens in the coop since he was elected.

I thought Dewhurst and his opposition pulled several yes votes into the no category

[Sysiphus]

The FAA did the right thing. A lot of the TSA stuff is stupid and unnecessary. But, almost all air travel involves more than one state and we cannot have individual states deciding which safety regs to comply with and which not to. Heck, even with an intra-state flight, the plane may continue onwards to another state.

[SSG Rex]

The FAA did not "do the right thing". The TSA isn't even legal, Constitutionally speaking. Individual cities have succeeded in booting TSA from their airports, why not a state? Cause the Federal government is terrified that more and more states are going to assert their 10th Amendment sovereignty.
TSA routinely oversteps their mostly-imagined authority and serves no useful purpose anyway. Detained by a TSA flunkie? Call a real cop and see who really is in violation of the law.
Handing a badge and rubber gloves to a schlub that couldn't get a job that required any skills or intelligence and forcing the public to cower before them is counter to the principles we were founded on.

At the very least, if the government hauls out that poor overused and abused, mutilated, unrecognizable whipping-boy known as the "interstate commerce clause", Texas should take the step of banning TSA intrusion into any intra-state travel. God love em for trying.

[SSG Rex]

Originally Posted by Potemkin

Brilliant!!! I want to buy a crapload of those as stickers and paste em all over my and my wife's luggage!

Oh and get this idiocy...while traveling for this deployment, my entire unit flew on CHARTER flights departing from the Army Airfield at Ft Hood, TX, and were told that all of our bags and carry-ons had to comply with TSA regs. (Like a 3-oz bottle of bodywash is going to last me a YEAR? jackoffs). So at the same time we're told to follow these moronic rules, we're all carrying at least two edged weapons and one firearm (two in my case).

[Dreamweaver]

Originally Posted by SSG Rex

Oh and get this idiocy...while traveling for this deployment, my entire unit flew on CHARTER flights departing from the Army Airfield at Ft Hood, TX, and were told that all of our bags and carry-ons had to comply with TSA regs. (Like a 3-oz bottle of bodywash is going to last me a YEAR? jackoffs). So at the same time we're told to follow these moronic rules, we're all carrying at least two edged weapons and one firearm (two in my case).

FUBAR!!!!!!!

[Sysiphus]

At the very least, if the government hauls out that poor overused and abused, mutilated, unrecognizable whipping-boy known as the "interstate commerce clause", Texas should take the step of banning TSA intrusion into any intra-state travel. God love em for trying.

I disagree completely. If there is one area where the interstate commerce clause SHOULD apply, it is air travel. Indeed, if you look at the history of the commerce clause one of the major concerns was states attempting to regulate shipping, which is completely analogous to air transport. Unlike gun control laws, no tortured reading of the commerce clause is necessary. And, nothing in the TX statute says it is limited to intra-state travel, anyways. You can wax all you want about ridiculous TSA regs, and their legality, but would you really want each of the 50 states having different standards for safety and security on airplanes? What if one state decides to not require any searches or screening at all to bolster its tourism industry? Would you seriously want to get on that airplane after it arrives at an airport in your state to start a 2nd leg? The recourse for TX is to get their congressional reps to push for this in Congress - that is federalism in this case.

[SSG Rex]

Originally Posted by Sysiphus

Would you seriously want to get on that airplane after it arrives at an airport in your state to start a 2nd leg?

Yes. Because the whole premise of the TSA is flawed to begin with. They are totally ineffective, and let's not forget, it might fit nicely in the commerce clause (which seems to me to apply to commerce of goods, not movement of citizens), but also violates every single phrase in the 4th Amendment.

Yes, it should also be addressed in the federal arena, to ban the TSA completely and instead institute a set of guidelines for some ACTUAL procedures to prevent terrorist acts. The guy in charge of airline/airport security for Israel dismissed our TSA system as ineffective, inefficient, and counter-productive.
Any other system would be more effective. My wife routinely gets harassed, to the point of being told to remove her hoodie for search (she only wore a bra underneath), while the bearded, head-doily-wearing Arab male on her flight was ignored, though he kept muttering what she told me sounded suspiciously like "Allah Akbar" under his breath the whole time. They search and harass everyone else (especially LE and Mil), and happily fondle small children, but pointedly refuse to search or question the people that are the REASON for enhanced security.

But yes, it should fall to the states to refuse to allow the suspension of the Bill of Rights within their borders, whatever justifications are behind it.

Personally, I think the most effective option is to allow passengers (and crew, obviously) to fly armed. Equal to that is the Israeli system, of training every employee of the airport and airline what signs to look for, and to observe and report every suspicious person. Can you tell me what their success rate is to date?

[SSG Rex]

Update. Utah has also introduced a bill that would force TSA to stay within their 4th Amendment limits.
http://patriotupdate.com/7370/utah-t...comment-137860

Oh and it was pointed out to me that if Texas called the FAA bluff, they would probably cave. Denying air traffic to the 2nd largest state in the union, both in area AND population - not to mention a state that contains the hub airports for American, Delta, and Southwest airlines - would deal a crippling blow to the airline industry (didn't we just bail them out?) and the national economy in general.

[leistb]

Originally Posted by SSG Rex

Update. Utah has also introduced a bill that would force TSA to stay within their 4th Amendment limits.
http://patriotupdate.com/7370/utah-t...comment-137860

Oh and it was pointed out to me that if Texas called the FAA bluff, they would probably cave. Denying air traffic to the 2nd largest state in the union, both in area AND population - not to mention a state that contains the hub airports for American, Delta, and Southwest airlines - would deal a crippling blow to the airline industry (didn't we just bail them out?) and the national economy in general.

Don't forget Continental.

I say call the bluff and risk a no-fly zone, damaging the bottom line of the respective airline companies and the greater economy as a whole. That's one more bogeyman in a long line of bogeymen this fraud of a government is trying to run.

Without TARP there would be tanks in the streets -only to find out that TARP wasn't used as advertised and yet the system didn't crumble- it (the money) just went to a lot of banks (most of them foreign).

If we allowed GM and Chrysler to go bankrupt the ripple effects would be far-reaching and traumatic to the economy. Now GM is stuffing the supply channel to the hilt to give the impression there is consumer demand, when in fact, dealer inventory is overwhelmed and they're needing to offer 0% financing to attract buyers. The majority of Chrysler's stock is about to be owned by FIAT -a little discussed outcome known at the time of the restructuring of Chrysler's debt. And don't forget the complete disregard for contract law, which dislocated senior debt-holders position's in favor of the unions. Without a massive shell game of continued book cooking, GM and Chrysler are still broke but it's off the MSM's radar so all must be well.

So now we have TSA, a bloated, out-of-control invention of the gov't in response to failing to act upon intelligence provided by agents in various agencies prior to the events of 9/11. A case of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped at the expense of the general public's freedoms.

Were there hijackings prior to 9/11? Yes. Was the system perfect? No. Is life risk-free? No. Can the government guarantee my safety? No.

I'd rather take my chances with reasonable security precautions such as metal detectors and a shitload of profiling and if some douchebag wants to attempt to bring down a flight with box cutters, I'll happily step up and get in his way on his way to the cockpit. This whole fear theme really is getting old and tired and pretty soon we're all going to need to be wearing body cameras to prevent our shadows from sneaking up on us.

[leistb]

Originally Posted by Sysiphus

The FAA did the right thing. A lot of the TSA stuff is stupid and unnecessary. But, almost all air travel involves more than one state and we cannot have individual states deciding which safety regs to comply with and which not to. Heck, even with an intra-state flight, the plane may continue onwards to another state.

Originally Posted by Sysiphus

You can wax all you want about ridiculous TSA regs, and their legality, but would you really want each of the 50 states having different standards for safety and security on airplanes? What if one state decides to not require any searches or screening at all to bolster its tourism industry? Would you seriously want to get on that airplane after it arrives at an airport in your state to start a 2nd leg? The recourse for TX is to get their congressional reps to push for this in Congress - that is federalism in this case.

I think it's quite a stretch to say that because this possibility exists in theory, that it is therefore elevated to a likely outcome. Why not let the market decide what precautions to take and standardize them among themselves. It seems to me that the airlines, the insurance companies insuring the aircraft and the passengers and for damn sure the pilots and crew working those flights have absolutely zero interest in letting the planes go down due to terrorism and terrorists.

Part of my background includes aviation electronics and airframe and powerplant mechanics and there is a tremendous amount of standardization within that industry. I would argue that the majority of standardization didn't come about because of the government declaring it necessary, but because it improves the efficiency of the industry from an ability to service and maintain the millions of components on complicated aircraft systems. The FAA does not impress me with its ability to manage the system from virtually any perspective. It too, has grown into a tangled, inefficient, bureaucratic mess restricting access to airspace and imposing confusing regulations and creating a crapload of paperwork without really solving any long-term problems it purports to want to solve.

Having the government involved because there are international flights using a variety of navigation and ATC systems might be appropriate if one wants to invoke the Commerce Clause argument. However, in the absence of government intervention from that angle, I have no doubt that a market solution could be reached with little to no difficulty.

[Ought Six]

To say that a state banning grossly intrusive groping would bring the whole system down is ridiculous. If Texas stands up to the TSA and wins, other states will follow with nearly identical bills. That will only force TSA to set a new and more reasonable standard nationwide. I do not see the problem here.

[Potemkin]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-perry-vs-tsa/

EDITORIAL: Rick Perry vs. TSA
Texas governor’s call would force screeners to change perverted ways


It’s now up to Texas Gov. Rick Perry to rescue the nation’s travelers from the indignity of x-rated airport screening at the hands of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). On Tuesday, a state House of Representatives committee is scheduled to consider revised legislation holding blue-gloved bureaucrats criminally liable for grabbing the private parts of passengers without probable cause or consent. For the measure to proceed further, however, Mr. Perry would have to formally add it to the list of bills considered during the special session now under way.

State Rep. David P. Simpson, the bill’s author, believes that ought to be the natural thing to do for Mr. Perry, author of the book, “Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington.” Mr. Simpson’s legislation merely clarifies that federal agents do not have a blank check to violate the Lone Star State’s criminal statutes while acting without explicit orders from Congress - no such orders exist. “This is not nullification,” Mr. Simpson explained to The Washington Times. “There is no federal law we’re contravening. We’re seeking to protect the citizens of Texas from an overreach - literally - of a federal bureaucracy that’s gone wild.”

[dyrt]

The state Republicans are clamoring for all their favorite agendas to be put on the schedule because the special session has different rules than the regular session. The Democrats have almost no power in the special session because the Republicans have a super majority. The Republicans will easily pass anything that is put on the schedule.

Perry has a major opportunity to do some things that enhance his national image.

Sticking it to TSA might be a popular issue nationwide. Obama would have to think twice about a heavy handed federal response that would support the Republicans' claim that the government has overreached. A Texas bill, even a watered down symbolic one, would give Perry the ultimate anti-Washington political campaign card.