Travel

Rant

Texas Rogue State May Ban TSA Pat Downs

Posted 12 months ago|16 comments|749 views
Written by
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
If you are out there searching for ammunition for a story on how Texas has become a rogue US state, look no further than this FOXNews video with Texas state representative, David Simpson, discussing his plans for legislation that would effectively ban TSA agents from controversial pat downs at the airports in Texas unless they had probable cause – wonder what he considers probable cause in this case, is it racial profiling all over again? (source)

This story is fascinating on a number of levels not to mention the interview in which he seems to contradict himself near the end, more on that later.

To begin, of course, Mr. Simpson will find himself and Texas in a particularly uncomfortable situation is this bill were to pass and be signed into law.

1) The state will have a difficult time enacting a law that supersedes laws of a Federal Agency.

If they get beyond this factor somehow...

2) The airlines that operate out of Texas will find themselves in a bind because other states may refuse to allow passengers on planes from TX from entering their airports – sort of like the way our nation forbids air traffic to our nation from countries that don't meet our federal levels of expectations in the way of security screenings.

3) Insurance agencies may refuse to insure aircrafts and flights containing passengers screened in Texas.

4) Passengers may opt not to travel to and from Texas out of fear that the TSA is not as strict as elsewhere.

Surely 2, 3, and 4 would have a gravely negative impact on the economy of Texas.

Beyond these things, as the FOXNews hosts correctly suggest, the law punishes workers for doing their federally mandated job. Are there many out there that would agree with this position? The host then follow-up with the question, "Isn't this designed to get the attention of the federal government?" Rep. Simpson says well, yes, but his answers to most of the questions are scattered and contradictory. He apparently feels the Constitution protects citizens from unwarranted searches by the government. Where was this Simpson character the day after 9/11 when terrorists armed with box cutters boarded passenger jets and used them as WMDs? Was he off owl hunting in the backwoods? Does Simpson get the concept that there are many of us out there who think the government went way overboard with the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Dept. that really don't seem to have accomplished much more than making domestic air travel a much bigger hassle than before? We were not the ones out there shouting for all this senseless security. If it occurred to no one that four men attending flight school in Minnesota with the only objective being to learn to fly and not land or take-off, then where we're at now wouldn't stop that. In any case, it's just ironic that Texans lead the nation in their right-wing zeal over patriotism and war-mongering, and here's a Republican representative out championing legislation to decrease security. Oh, the right wing, neo-conservative contradictions never cease.

Finally, let's get back to the contradictions in his statement mentioned earlier. If you watch the video which will consume approximately 4 minutes of your life, which you'll never get back, you'll hear the honorable Representative expound on the 'inappropriate touching' by TSA agents even going so far as to accuse some of them of probably liking what they are doing – a disgusting comment spurted involuntarily to be sure. You'll here him talk about how this is such a violation. Then you will hear him say that in the past month no fewer than five undercover agents have gotten through DFW security with hidden guns and what we need to be focusing on isn't pat downs but, rather, metal detectors and explosive sniffing dogs. Hopefully, the many ironies of this won't be lost on most readers especially since it's pretty well known that carrying a gun in Texas is king.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago:
Well, you have to admit, the Constitution does forbid unwarranted (without a warrant or reasonable suspicion) searches of our selves, papers, and residences.

The same logic the left used to rail against the immigration laws in Arizona is now being employed in by the right in Texas, against the TSA, and the left is fit to be tied.

Me personally, I don't care either way. I'll drive. I tried the flying thing a few times, and it felt too much like being cattle getting rounded up. Same reason I'll never have a "regular job".
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: You have a good point! Except that in both cases of Az and Tx, the federal government should win.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Why would you say that? Wasn't the case in AZ all about violating a citizens Constitutional rights banning unwarranted searches? Of course, it was wrapped in the cloak of racial profiling, but the core argument was against an unwarranted search of a POSSIBLE illegal alien, even with reasonable suspicion.

Now, the TSA treats everyone as a possible terrorist, and searches their bodies and their belongings, without any reasonable suspicion at all.

So why should the government be allowed to do this? For our illusion of safety? Do we care more for the rights of illegals than we do our own citizens?
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
Content Removed by BadCyborg
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago:
"The state will have a difficult time enacting a law that supersedes laws of a Federal Agency."
Why? Since when does a policy of a federal agency trump a STATUTE of one of the several states? Did they repeal the 10 amendment without telling anyone? TSA regs are merely internal entitities to govern how a single federal agency operates. They are not law!
"[Rep. Simpson] apparently feels the Constitution protects citizens from unwarranted searches by the government. "
AND he is not alone in that - to your mind - "misconception". There is a little thing often referred to as THE FOURTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution that would appear - strictly on the surface of it, mind you - to guarantee against JUST THAT! How does it go? Oh, yes:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
Looks pretty iron clad to me.
"Where was this Simpson character the day after 9/11 when terrorists armed with box cutters boarded passenger jets and used them as WMDs?"
First off "WMDs"????? They used airliners as terror weapons but not as WMDs. Of course, since they have not completely succeeded in doing away with the 1st amendment, you have a right to use a completely idiosyncratic definition for the term.

Additionally, Simpson's whereabouts on 9/12/01 are irrelevant to this discussion.

(end of part 1. I will address other problems with your pose in part two)
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: I was being sarcastic when I wrote "...apparenty feels...". Of course the Constitution protects us against unwarranted searches and seizures. My point was that after 9/11, the GOP-controlled Congress and White House was hot to take away all our rights and nobody in Texas hollered "boo" about it. Now, years later, they want to argue in favor of our rights and freedoms? This is a case the ACLU would be all over were it not for the fact that the ACLU is practically a bad word in Texas, right?

One of the things that bothers me, as a tax paying citizen, is inconsistency. Texans don't want a strong federal government unless they need aid to put out fires, they don't want the government stepping on their freedoms now, but were the biggest advocates post 9/11. So which is it? Do they want freedom or don't they? Do they want a powerful central government with tax dollars to spend or don't they?

This was my point. Be consistent.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago:
"If you watch the video [snippage] you'll hear the honorable Representative expound on the 'inappropriate touching' by TSA agents even going so far as to accuse some of them of probably liking what they are doing – a disgusting comment spurted involuntarily to be sure."
Are you aware of just how many of "We the People" who share the State Representative's view of the "pat downs"?? Have you seen none of the U-Tube videos of women and children being sexually assaulted (because that is what you or I would be charged with were we to engage in such activity) by TSA workers? And a great many people wonder if some of them are not secretly enjoying it. The law of averages would suggest that it is a virtual CERTAINTY that at least a few DO enjoy it. There is also a video floating around that CLEARLY depicts a TSA employee on a SERIOUS power trip.
"carrying a gun in Texas is king."
{wistful sigh} Would that such were so. In point of fact we cannot even carry openly in Texas. The only way we can carry at all is if we have a Concealed Handgun License. And that cost significant money to be trailed to qualify for and a rather large state licensing fee as well. So in what way is carrying a gun in Texas king? Kindly elaborate.

So, to reiterate:
There is the 10 Amendment reserving rights not explicitly granted to the federal government to the States or to the people.

There is the 4th Amendment explicitly detailing the right of the people "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures".

Airliners are NOT generally considered to be WMDs. That term is reserved for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological weapons.

Many people consider groping by the TSA to be offensive and potentially criminal.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Interesting...

(a) Videotaping in the secured areas of an airport in the USA is a federal crime, but thank goodness we have people out there as watchdogs on TSA agents. If there are people employed by the TSA, and you believe there are and I don't know, so I'll defer to you, who enjoy such pat down, they should be fired. Let's not indict all of them based on the acts of a few. Or do we want to be a nation that does that?

(b) We have to make a decision as a nation if we want to live in fear or not. Go watch your nemesis's films "Bowling for Columbine" and "Farenheit 911". As near as most of us can tell, we are no safer than pre 9/11 despite spending how much money, creating more govt. agencies and a new department, and spending billions on airport security which you and I pay as a tax on every ticket we purchase to fly. Who was it that was all in favor of all this? It certainly wasn't those of us who actually work for personal liberty in the USA. Which again, is why I find this whole event ironic. Maybe it's a source of common ground for people on the right with those on the left.

Please understand that my entire post here, apparently written too thickly and being read from a particular mindset by some, was intended to point to irony. I apologize for doing such a terrible job, but try to remember that you and others have decided, and I guess it's fun for you, that I am a voice of the left and you are voices of the right, and we are polar opposites. Unfortunately, the error is that I am not the mindset of the left even if I come across as the voice in counter-point to the extreme right on here.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: It's one of my constant frustrations that our citizens have become so lazy it's easier to just pick a party and say, "what he said" than to study an issue and formulate an actual opinion based on your own experiences. I find it impossible to believe that everyone on the right just agrees automatically with everything that Sarah Palin, for example, spews.

How much stronger would our nation be if people would turn off talk radio and tv, read a variety of news sources, and formulate opinions based on their own values, intelligence, and perspective. We might be so less quick to judge each other before listening.

For you see, I am not in favor of pat downs. I am not in favor of letting those who would wish us harm (tw3uh) the upper hand by changing the way we live, restricting our freedoms, and spending billions on security that accomplishes little and inconveniences many. I was reading the other day after bin Laden's demise about how much money he personally cost the USA and it was over $700 billion. Who do we think won that one?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: The only thing I can see that make this another case of all blow and no show is the fact that international airports are largely government owned and contractor operated. In that case, the man what owns the house calls the tune. Same as with the highway system. If the government built it, they can make the rules of use.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: What? No comebacks for my refutations of your utterly specious and inane comments?

What Congress-passed-and-President-signed statute enables the TSA to utterly disregard the 4th Amendment?

The fact that a government employee commits an offense on Federal property is no defense in state court. We're not talking about a state allegedly "usurping" Federal duties, we are talking about employees (contractors, in actuality) of the federal government committing sexual assault.

Rogue State? And here I thought the power flowed from "We The People" to the several States and THENCE to the federal government. Is the flow of power to be in the opposite direction now? Is the federal government now the ultimate authority? What of the 10th Amendment - AND the 9th??

Or are we not into - NAY! well into - a situation that could aptly be described as " a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably . . . a design to reduce [the citizens of our Republic] under absolute Despotism"? Because if we are - and a case could be made that we, in fact, are - in such a situation then the People's rights AND DUTY are clear.

Heaven help us.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: BC, I love how you get so hoping mad if I don't respond immediately to your comments. Sorry, I do currently have a job. I can hop on and off the Internet and answer a few, then I have to go back to work. Ok?

The Congress-passed-and-President-signed statute that enables the TSA to do what it wants is called the Patriot Act. You might read about it on line. It's fascinating in the authority it grants the President. It's really scary if you ask me, but then I was not in favor of it being signed. I was not in favor of any of it being retained. Unfortunately, President Obama and the GOP congress want to keep it. They like the powers it gives them and our rights it eliminates. But, hey, that's what a good dose of fear will do for you. Oh, if only our collective attention span and long-term memory lasted more than a two-year cycle of representatives, right?

If a TSA agent is abusing his or her authority during a pat down, of course he or she should be held accountable. How one would prove this, I'm not sure. They are given wide authority to protect the nation. You also don't want to be the TSA agent that lets through the person with no-nos in his drawers do you? So, again, it goes back to my earlier responses about fear, our indivudal liberties, and so forth.

As for the rogue state comment, again, it was a poor attempt at irony and sarcasm.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: FYI, I faxed my representative and senators asking them to oppose the mislabeled "Patriot Act" back when it first came up. They ignored me. I have faxed them again now that the act is about to die but expect the same result.

Who's "hopping mad"?? I thought that OOtB's response above was from you (didn't notice the poster's label) and thought you were blowing me off.

There are other ways to get explosives onto a plane than in one's underwear. The best way would be disguised as something innocuous in check baggage.

I do not live in fear. Nothing I do can in the slightest way affect how/what our enemies might do. I take reasonable precautions and otherwise don't think about it. I also recall Franklin's comment about people willing to trade liberty for safety deserving neither.Personally, I think anybody who wants to carry on a plane should be allowed to do so so long as their weapons are loaded with frangible ammunition.

A written forum is a poor place for irony or sarcasm. Without the benefits of being able to hear voice inflection or see body language, one can only take you at face value.

You have identified yourself as an educator. With almost no exceptions, all the educators I have ever met were just a tiny bit to the right of mainstream journalists. You certainly seem to take a progressive tack most of the time.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
12 months ago: I was also an educator and my experience is that most teachers (with the exception of the coaches) were liberal. That is because they are motivated by self sacrifice for the betterment of the students. Most of the Public Servants are left leaning.

Most of the Bankers, wall street traders, and greedy CEO's who are motivated by the money, and by greed, are conservative.

The Independents are the ones that work hard for a living and and are more concerned with putting bread on the table than politics. They expect the government to work for them, and to protect them. Many were duped into thinking that government is the problem, but in reality the corporations and the rich who own the lawmakers are the problem. Now people are learning that government should be there to protect the people from the abuses of the corporations.

Sounds like the TSA just needs to have a decent union so the agents can have good training, and they can hire better quality agents with a living wage and benefits, so they will do their jobs of stopping the bad guys while not harassing the good guys.
12 months ago: You might want to hone your take of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause."

Pretty clear.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
12 months ago: Me wonders how many Texas GOP types in the US Congress happily pushed through laws such as the so called Patriot Act and now Texas is worried about pat downs and the 4th Amendment? It's obscene political hypocrisy.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: In the aftermath of 9/11, a lot of people were will to submit to just about anything to help insure safety from another terrorist attack. Now, ten years later, not so much. After the bombing of three countries by us, at least one of which, Libya, was known to harbor terrorists, the perception of danger has decreased.

How many DNC types voted for the Patriot Act, only to change their mind later?

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.