Texas Bill Would Make Invasive Pat-Downs a Felony
The bill would make it illegal for a security officer to intentionally touch someone's private areas – even atop clothing – unless they have probable cause to believe the person is carrying something illegal.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/29/texas-make-invasive-pat-downs-felony/
Its like I woke up in some bizarro world where the constitution actually matters.
It's probably for all the wrong reasons, but I'll take it. :D
Texas still considers itself a Sovereign Republic, y'know. THEM FEDS AIN'T TELLIN US WUT TA DO, AH GARN DAM TEE YA.
TSA is federal and will promptly ignore this state law.
Quote from: Charley Brown on April 30, 2011, 05:27:01 PM
TSA is federal and will promptly ignore this state law.
:sad:
Might be fun to watch, though.
Quote from: Charley Brown on April 30, 2011, 05:27:01 PM
TSA is federal and will promptly ignore this state law.
Common defense (defence)
is a consitutionally enumerate power of the federal government so there is no 10th amendment precedent for federal law
not to supersede state legislation on matters concerning the TSA.
If someone wants to poke a whole in this line of reasoning please do, it's not exactly a position that I'm happy to argue from.
Of course, none of that changes the fact that the 4th amendment is still being violated, but it's not the states job to enforce federal constitutional law.
That Simpson guy has got to be aware of that. It's just something to make him look like a freedom fighter for the rights of Teh Peepil without having to actually change anything.
Having a TSA agent or two arrested for it will lead to some interesting court battles at least.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 01, 2011, 12:38:15 AM
Having a TSA agent or two arrested for it will lead to some interesting court battles at least.
TSA operates under DHS. No one will be arrested at the federal level.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 30, 2011, 11:05:31 PM
That Simpson guy has got to be aware of that. It's just something to make him look like a freedom fighter for the rights of Teh Peepil without having to actually change anything.
I'm leaning towards this. It's in the same category of banning Sharia law (in that it's a political move, and means jack squat, legally), only this time we agree with it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 01, 2011, 02:55:58 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 30, 2011, 11:05:31 PM
That Simpson guy has got to be aware of that. It's just something to make him look like a freedom fighter for the rights of Teh Peepil without having to actually change anything.
I'm leaning towards this. It's in the same category of banning Sharia law (in that it's a political move, and means jack squat, legally), only this time we agree with it.
It's definitely a political move, not a practical one. These assholes are just posturing to look good on the Evening News, as always. They don't actually give a fuck about the Constitution. The guy is just a bandwagon Tea Party Republican (see his "issues (http://davidsimpson.com/issues)" page).
And although I admire this move, I admire it for the same reason this guy
isn't proposing it: because it would be nice to see somebody draw a line in the sand over violations of Constitutional rights. It's too bad that if I want to hang out with people who believe in limiting the power of the Federal Government, I also have to hang out with people who are unabashedly racist (especially toward the President), anti-gay, anti-women's-rights, willfully ignorant, uneducated, and who enjoy the company of firearms more than the company of other people.
It's almost enough to make me wonder if maybe my support for limiting the Federal Government isn't just a stupid spot in my own brain.
Quote from: postvex™ on May 01, 2011, 06:44:26 AM
It's almost enough to make me wonder if maybe my support for limiting the Federal Government isn't just a stupid spot in my own brain.
I have already crossed this line. I'm ready for President Obama to declare himself "President For Life" and suspend habeas corpus indefinitely, "until such time as all present security issues have been resolved". At least at that point, you
really know the score. These days, it's hard to tell whether we live in a free country or a "Free
TM" country.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on May 01, 2011, 07:00:15 AM
Quote from: postvex™ on May 01, 2011, 06:44:26 AM
It's almost enough to make me wonder if maybe my support for limiting the Federal Government isn't just a stupid spot in my own brain.
I have already crossed this line. I'm ready for President Obama to declare himself "President For Life" and suspend habeas corpus indefinitely, "until such time as all present security issues have been resolved". At least at that point, you really know the score. These days, it's hard to tell whether we live in a free country or a "FreeTM" country.
My suspicion is that if you still think there's a chance there's any such thing as
Freedom North of Mexico or South of Canada these days, you haven't been thinking hard enough.
Personally, I don't care either way anymore. If we are Republican-style Free™, we're fucked because one back stroke of luck and you go directly to rock bottom and you don't get back up again. If we're Obama-style Free™, we're fucked because one stroke of bad luck, and Obama forms a committee on what to do about it, then ultimately defers to the Republicans anyway.
Quote from: postvex™ on May 01, 2011, 07:13:50 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on May 01, 2011, 07:00:15 AM
Quote from: postvex™ on May 01, 2011, 06:44:26 AM
It's almost enough to make me wonder if maybe my support for limiting the Federal Government isn't just a stupid spot in my own brain.
I have already crossed this line. I'm ready for President Obama to declare himself "President For Life" and suspend habeas corpus indefinitely, "until such time as all present security issues have been resolved". At least at that point, you really know the score. These days, it's hard to tell whether we live in a free country or a "FreeTM" country.
My suspicion is that if you still think there's a chance there's any such thing as Freedom North of Mexico or South of Canada these days, you haven't been thinking hard enough.
Personally, I don't care either way anymore. If we are Republican-style Free™, we're fucked because one back stroke of luck and you go directly to rock bottom and you don't get back up again. If we're Obama-style Free™, we're fucked because one stroke of bad luck, and Obama forms a committee on what to do about it, then ultimately defers to the Republicans anyway.
Point. :lulz: