This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
TSA Security Theatre
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Your point? Judicial review was not included in the Constitution, and thus it didn't exist in the US until the Supreme Court declared that they had that power in the aforementioned case.
Uh, no? Judicial review existed long before the US did - several states specifically included it in their Constitutions prior to the formation of the US. That the Supreme Court is the US's ultimate appellate court would suggest that it can also judge questions of constitutionality.
In any event, if not the Supreme Court, what would you propose alternatively?
My argument is that regulation of airspace is not permitted because is unconstitutional, that that has been my argument from the beginning.
Ok, I'll keep that stance in mind.
The "Constitutional right to privacy" he's referring to is the 4th Amendment.
You miss my point. He doesn't think that
regulations
(in general) are unconstitutional, as you do. He believes that it's unconstitutional only insofar as it breaches the right to privacy. But to argue that legitimately, he must also argue against the breach to your right to bear arms.
That makes no sense. Making a law to prevent government involvement isn't government involvement -- that law is something completely internal to the government itself (making it so no employee of the government gets any immunities to grope, x-ray, etc. people).
Wrong. You don't need a law to say that an employee of the government doesn't get immunities to something that they shouldn't have immunities for in the first place. By creating a law regulating 'regulating action' in a particular field, you are inherently (albeit indirectly) regulating that field.
The TSA was created in 2001. What are you talking about?
If that's the case, there's been 9 years for a Supreme Court challenge to have taken place questioning the existence of the TSA in the first instance, which is a few multiples of the time you suggested a law might take to get to the Supreme Court.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Uh, no? Judicial review existed long before the US did - several states specifically included it in their Constitutions prior to the formation of the US. That the Supreme Court is the US's ultimate appellate court would suggest that it can also judge questions of constitutionality.
State government =/= federal government.
State courts =/= federal courts.
The federal government defers to the state government in state matters, the state government defers to the federal government in federal matters. The federal courts defer to the state courts in state matters, the state courts defers to the federal courts in federal matters.
In any event, if not the Supreme Court, what would you propose alternatively?
For reviewing laws? Well, ultimately the people. It is the legislature's job the create laws, and that's what they do. It is their place to determine what is constitutional and what is not on behalf of the people, that's why they were elected. It is the executive branch's job to see the execution of those laws. It's his place to determine the constitutionality of applying the laws on behalf of the people, that's why he was elected. It's the judicial branch's job to judge settle all disputes arising from the application of the laws.
You miss my point. He doesn't think that regulations (in general) are unconstitutional, as you do. He believes that it's unconstitutional only insofar as it breaches the right to privacy. But to argue that legitimately, he must also argue against the breach to your right to bear arms.
I really don't think you're understanding the nuances of this situation.
A private airline not allowing guns onto its plane
is not
a breach of a person's right to bear arms. The government forcing people to be searched
is
a breach of privacy.
Sure, Ron Paul is willing to work with the system we have in place, and try to fix things. But I am 100% positive that all TSA regulation is a breach into the private sector.
Wrong. You don't need a law to say that an employee of the government doesn't get immunities to something that they shouldn't have immunities for in the first place. By creating a law regulating 'regulating action' in a particular field, you are inherently (albeit indirectly) regulating that field.
But it's not regulation that field (air-travel) at all. That's the whole point. The bill is regulating government employees. If you can't make a distinction like that, I don't know what to say. And yes, you do need a law if something is happening that shouldn't be happening. That's the whole point of laws.
If that's the case, there's been 9 years for a Supreme Court challenge to have taken place questioning the existence of the TSA in the first instance, which is a few multiples of the time you suggested a law might take to get to the Supreme Court.
What?
The Supreme Court doesn't challenge things. There needs to be a case that needs to be challenged all the way up to the top.
I never gave a number because there isn't one. Some individual cases take a decade to get to the Supreme Court, and there is no reason that one case had to have been started in 2001. It could be 2020 before someone has the means and drive to take it all the way to the top. That it hasn't happened yet is meaningless.
Post by
Squishalot
The federal government defers to the state government in state matters, the state government defers to the federal government in federal matters. The federal courts defer to the state courts in state matters, the state courts defers to the federal courts in federal matters.
Matters of federal constitutionality are federal matters.
For reviewing laws? Well, ultimately the people. It is the legislature's job the create laws, and that's what they do. It is their place to determine what is constitutional and what is not on behalf of the people, that's why they were elected. It is the executive branch's job to see the execution of those laws. It's his place to determine the constitutionality of applying the laws on behalf of the people, that's why he was elected. It's the judicial branch's job to judge settle all disputes arising from the application of the laws.
Then presumably, your legislature is comfortable with the constitutionality of the laws and processes at present, subject to a vote in Congress against it. Isn't the TSA a body whose existence is authorised by an act of Congress?
Sure, Ron Paul is willing to work with the system we have in place, and try to fix things. But I am 100% positive that all TSA regulation is a breach into the private sector.
It should go without saying that your opinion isn't necessarily the right answer. But at the end of the day, it's a constitutional argument as to whether it's a breach or not. And as you say, the question of constitutionality is up to the legislature to decide as the people's representatives. I personally think that's a flawed system, as it does not provide for any checks and balances during the appointment period of the legislature, but I take your point that the Supreme Court are not elected representatives of the people.
But it's not regulation that field (air-travel) at all. That's the whole point. The bill is regulating government employees. If you can't make a distinction like that, I don't know what to say. And yes, you do need a law if something is happening that shouldn't be happening. That's the whole point of laws.
No you don't - you charge the people under existing laws before coming up with a new law
for the purpose of saying that they're not immune to existing laws
. That's pure bureaucracy. If there's no law saying that they're immune from prosecution, then by definition, they're currently not immune. You don't need a new law to codify that fact.
What?
The Supreme Court doesn't challenge things. There needs to be a case that needs to be challenged all the way up to the top.
*sigh* I do think you take pleasure in misinterpreting me at times. 'A Supreme Court challenge' refers to a challenge mounted in the Supreme Court, not a challenge initiated by the Supreme Court.
I never gave a number because there isn't one. Some individual cases take a decade to get to the Supreme Court, and there is no reason that one case had to have been started in 2001. It could be 2020 before someone has the means and drive to take it all the way to the top. That it hasn't happened yet is meaningless.
Never be proven, one thing to prove me wrong and all that. Can you provide me with any legal practioners who agree with you? I'm still of the opinion that regulation of airspace, especially in the period following 9/11, can be claimed by the federal government under national defense powers given to it in the Constitution, even if it doesn't have explicit right to regulate it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Matters of federal constitutionality are federal matters.
Again...says who? Not the Constitution.
Then presumably, your legislature is comfortable with the constitutionality of the laws and processes at present, subject to a vote in Congress against it. Isn't the TSA a body whose existence is authorised by an act of Congress?
They were at the time, yes. And now people are beginning to see that is was bad and that's why changes are beginning to be made.
No you don't - you charge the people under existing laws before coming up with a new law for the purpose of saying that they're not immune to existing laws. That's pure bureaucracy. If there's no law saying that they're immune from prosecution, then by definition, they're currently not immune. You don't need a new law to codify that fact.
You said it yourself. TSA was implemented by Congress. It gave authority to the TSA to do certain things. It's this authority that is being called into question. Obviously they have too much authority if they are violating others' rights.
I'm still of the opinion that regulation of airspace, especially in the period following 9/11, can be claimed by the federal government under national defense powers given to it in the Constitution, even if it doesn't have explicit right to regulate it.
What are these "national defense powers" anyways? You've mentioned them several times, and I still have no idea what they are.
Post by
HoleofArt
A light, humorous look on it.
Post by
Adamsm
Another amusing look...and she makes a point.
Well the writer does...the Succubus, not so much heh.
Post by
Modibybob
I really don't care...if it keeps the plane in the sky and not jihaded by Muhammed Hussein, then I'm fine with it.
Post by
thesandman87
You know something, I have both my Mother and my brother working for TSA as screeners, and the nonsense your spouting is in no way true. The Full body CT scanner doesnt show you naked it shows your bones yes, naked no, it also shows any metal objects on your person the xray cant penetrate. Also the amount of Radiation is nominal, and perfectly safe, your being exposed for a very short amount of time and there is no harm being done to you, its the same amount that you would get going to the hospital and getting a catscan so give up that arguement. As for the pat downs well if your refusing to be scanned for weapons or other objects that are not allowed on an aircraft, then they are still required to find out.
Im guessing a repeat of 9/11 is what your after, you want people to board the plane with guns, knives ect again right? Want to see another tower ramed by a Jet because your to proud to be checked, anyone can be a terrorist, white, black, asian, arab, anyone. They don't know if you are or not, and there job is to protect this nation from another 9/11. You don't like the rules rent a private plane. But as long as you want to fly commerical you will have to follow government regulations, Flying isnt a right. Oh and as for private security they are required to follow the same rules and regs as TSA is, and if they slack on those rules the Federal Government shuts down the airport to retrain those secruity or it puts TSA back in.
Now why do we have said jurisdiction because past the gates at any airport is considered internal territory, meaning every gate is a national boarder, and we are allowed to post guards at our national boarders.
Post by
Theder
You don't like the rules rent a private plane. But as long as you want to fly commerical you will have to follow government regulations, Flying isnt a right. Oh and as for private security they are required to follow the same rules and regs as TSA is, and if they slack on those rules the Federal Government shuts down the airport to retrain those secruity or it puts TSA back in.
Now why do we have said jurisdiction because past the gates at any airport is considered internal territory, meaning every gate is a national boarder, and we are allowed to post guards at our national boarders.
And any other sort of public transportation soon. Is that also national borders?
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/12/wow-that-was-quick-obama-tsa-deploys-scanner-checkpoints-at-bus-stations-video/
Is your Mother and Brother also going to do this?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/airport-patdowns-grooming-children-sex-predators-abuse-expert/
Aaaaaand this here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-body_CT_scan
Look under health risks. It lists it as more than just "nominal radiation" and possible cancer is
not
perfectly safe. Such is the case of a frequent flyer.
So, yeah. The way this is going, I'm going to have my sack groped every time I go to Wally World.
Post by
Adamsm
Aaaaaand this here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-body_CT_scan
Look under health risks. It lists it as more than just "nominal radiation" and possible cancer is
not
perfectly safe. Such is the case of a frequent flyer.
So, yeah. The way this is going, I'm going to have my sack groped every time I go to Wally World.
No worse then the full body X-rays that already occur when you get a Cat Scan at the hospital. And if it comes down the zap(which lasts a minute or two) or a 5 minute body touch, sign me up for the scan, especially if I need to make my plane.
Post by
Theder
No worse for the normal traveler, perhaps. But like I said, the situation is different with a frequent flier. Having my sack groped or getting a lot of double dose radiation ...
I know I'm ranting alot about having my boys touched, but I don't like it - one bit. I didn't even like getting the physical done for Football in Middle School, having to turn and cough >.>
And not all Airports use the same scanner. The MMW scanner (Millimeter wave) has the possibility of doing serious harm. As does the backscatter. Currently, the only people that aren't concerned with the health effects are connected some way to the TSA/Feds. Wonder why..
And it will come to be with people who take the Subways and Buses on a regular basis, too. Watch out New York.
So, it's not only the terrorists who are trying to kill you.
TSA hasnt given any proof that the scanners have worked - at all. Last years nut blower at X-Mas would have been able to board the plane anyways if these scanners were deployed.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=234401
I'm all for security, don't get me wrong, and I don't have any better ideas' but going the way of a police state is not it. Alot of people have been quoting "Giving up liberty for security" etc etc, and I know it's getting old seeing it everywhere, but if the Feds aren't kept in check, there's no telling what they will try to do in the name of security.
Post by
Meggie
It's called "Texas".
Post by
Adamsm
I'm all for security, don't get me wrong, and I don't have any better ideas' but going the way of a police state is not it. Alot of people have been quoting "Giving up liberty for security" etc etc, and I know it's getting old seeing it everywhere, but if the Feds aren't kept in check, there's no telling what they will try to do in the name of security.
America has been giving away the liberties since 9/11. But freaking out over an x-ray scanner is a little much; if this thing gave off as much radiation as people seem to think, then you'd see the guards in lead aprons and there would be lead shields all over the place. I agree that they are taking national security a bit far....but you don't need to start moving into the conspiracy theory; the fact is, searches have always existed for airports long before the 'terrorists' started showing up so the 'TSA is going to lead to a future for pedophiles!' is a load of horse crap.
Post by
wolfeyoung
As a parent, I have a major problem with the idea of ANYONE touching my child for any reason. And nothing anyone here can say that'll change my mind or the mind of any other parent. If you don't have children, then you're likely not to understand.
It is wrong that the TSA touches our children. TSA agents are even trained to convince the children that it's a game, which is the same technique that pedophiles use on their victims. It's disgusting and horrifying.
And while I'm here, I'd like to point out a bit of irony in the Benjamin Franklin quote that everyone likes to throw around here. Benjamin felt that a united nation would be more
secure
then a divided nation. But in order to achieve this, the founders, including Franklin--when writing the lines "all men are created equal"--had to ignore the
freedom
of the slaves and the rights of women.
So yes, Franklin felt it was okay to sacrifice freedom for security, just not his freedom.
Post by
Adamsm
As a parent, I have a major problem with the idea of ANYONE touching my child for any reason. And nothing anyone here can say that'll change my mind or the mind of any other parent. If you don't have children, then you're likely not to understand.
It is wrong that the TSA touches our children. TSA agents are even trained to convince the children that it's a game, which is the same technique that pedophiles use on their victims. It's disgusting and horrifying.Then, when offered the choice of the pat down or the scanner, choose the scanner.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
wolfeyoung
How does the scanner being the lesser of two evils make a difference? In just about any other circumstance, someone taking naked pictures of a child or patting them down in this manner would be considered paedophilia.
Exactly. Even if the pictures are erased immediately afterward, it'll still constitutes as child pornography and can be considered a major violation of children's rights.
I don't believe that parents out there have yet to sued the TSA over this violation. I believe they have and failed. So this leads be to believe that our courts are upholding this violation of privacy on children. If this is true, then it sickens me and scares me that our nation is actually allowing such behavior.
Post by
Adamsm
Okay....some one is taking the Kool Aid.....The Scanners do not show Naked people; they show an x-rayed image of a person, so your seeing organs and the interior of the body, with any metal/foregin objects on your person shown as blotches against the organic. It's the exact same thing as an X-Ray scanner in a hospitol, not a pair of novelty X-Ray glasses that removes clothes. If you are thinking that people walking behind the scanner means that everyone can see you in your birthday suit well.....yeah, I have no comments about that.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.