Texas Legislature Passes Bill "Nullifying" TSA patdown authority

[Caelius]

Cue another Federal Govt. vs the States legal/media firestorm in 3..2..1..

As much as some of the pat down procedures are invasive and lack common sense, this action by Texas is blatantly unconstitutional. There is no State right to nullify Federal statutes.

Source

(Reuters) - The Texas House of Representatives late on Thursday approved a bill that would make invasive pat-downs at Texas airports a crime, after a former Miss USA said she felt "molested" at the Dallas/Fort Worth airport last month.

Transportation Security Administration agents could be charged with a misdemeanor crime, face a $4,000 fine and one year in jail under the measure.

The proposal would classify any airport inspection that "touches the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person including through the clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person" as an offense of sexual harassment under official oppression.

The measure's author, Republican David Simpson, said: "Indecent groping searches when innocent travelers are seeking access to airports and public buildings would be outlawed under this bill."

The bill needs a final vote from the House before it would go to the Senate.

"This has to do with dignity in travel," Simpson said.

TSA spokesman Luis Casanova said he could not comment on pending legislation. He said just 3 percent of the traveling public is subjected to pat-downs.

TSA pat-downs have drawn some high-profile criticism, including from former Miss USA Susie Castillo, who said in a widely-viewed online video. that she felt "molested" by a pat-down at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport last month.

The agency reviewed Castillo's incident and found that the officer followed proper procedures, said TSA assistant administrator Kristine Lee.

"We wish we lived in a world where security procedures at airports weren't necessary but that just isn't the case," Lee said in a statement.

(Reporting by Jim Forsyth and Corrie MacLaggan; Editing by Greg McCune)

[mp0295]

I would love to see Chuck Norris chasing after a Federal cop, trying to arrest them

[GrnEyedDvl]

Cue another Federal Govt. vs the States legal/media firestorm in 3..2..1..

As much as some of the pat down procedures are invasive and lack common sense, this action by Texas is blatantly unconstitutional. There is no State right to nullify Federal statutes.

You have this a bit backwards, in many areas states rights trump federal statutes, and this isnt even a statute its a policy enacted by a government agency. There is no specific statute passed by congress and signed by the president that says to pat people down.

[bushbush]

There is no specific statute passed by congress and signed by the president that says to pat people down.

Congress delegated TSA authority as an agency to make rules on how to implement its policy goals of ensuring air traffic safety.
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Aviati...w_107_1771.pdf

http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/49_USC...401_to_501.pdf

States can't intefere with federal government's operations if such operations are within constitutional powers of the federal government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

The only way states can challenge this is if they can show TSA is unconstitutional as an agency or this pat-down rule is outside of the power delegated by Congress.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Congress delegated TSA authority as an agency to make rules on how to implement its policy goals of ensuring air traffic safety.
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Aviati...w_107_1771.pdf

Rules are not laws

States can't intefere with federal government's operations if such operations are within constitutional powers of the federal government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

Show me the TSA in the Constitution...

The only way states can challenge this is if they can show TSA is unconstitutional as an agency or this pat-down rule is outside of the power delegated by Congress.

I would say the 4th Amendment, unreasonable search and seizure, which is probably what they will cite. Whether the Supreme Court agrees or not we will see, but this is hardly a rubber stamped overturning of whatever law Texas decides to pass.

In a related case, this from the Indiana Supreme Court, which in my opinion is a direct contradiction of the Constitution.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry

Really? For no reason at all the police can just kick in your door?? In some houses they might get shot.

[bushbush]

Rules are not laws

If you read the Acts, actually they are, since their rulemaking powers are delegated by Congress in statutes. This is quite common, consider how much rules bound you and your fellow Americans are written by federal agencies (FDA is the most prominent of course, also IRS)

Show me the TSA in the Constitution...

Easy. Airlines are interstate commerce so ensuring the safety and security of interstate commerce is a part of the federal power of "regulating interstate commerce". Establishing the TSA is a "necessary and proper" step to ensure the federal government can properly carry out its constitutoinal role under the elsatic clause.

I can't see a valid constitutional challenge against TSA. Not even the most pure textaulist judges (Scalia or Easterbrook) will agree with your approach. As the Great Chief Justice Marshall said, Constitutoin is not an ordinary piece of statute; it is meant to be active for ages. If you are going to take a 200+ years old and extremely short and vague document literally and read it as IRS code, you won't get anywhere.

I would say the 4th Amendment, unreasonable search and seizure, which is probably what they will cite. Whether the Supreme Court agrees or not we will see, but this is hardly a rubber stamped overturning of whatever law Texas decides to pass.

"unreasonable search" typically applies to police forces and taking of evidence which can be used in trials. I am not sure how that can apply to TSA routine security searches, which don't really take anything away from anyone to be used against them in court. I am not aware of any Constitutional challenge through this venue yet.

Not to mention if we apply this to TSA, that means everytime they search a passenger, they have to apply for a warrant from a judge, that's like millions of warrant applications daily....I don't thikn that works.

The TSA isn't constitutional to begin with. Where does the federal government get the authority? States have every right to ignore unconstitutional laws.

lol, are you expecting the founding fathers, who lived in the era without even public transportatoin, let along airplanes, to actually write TSA into the Constitution? That's incredibly silly considering it is a Constitutoin which lists broad powers for the government, not an IRS code.

not even the civil law countries' Constitutions can get that specific.

[(s)AINT]

What's wrong with Texans today? I love getting my dick, shaft, ass, and tits felt.

Step up or step out.

[sdjenkyn]

What's wrong with Texans today? I love getting my dick, shaft, ass, and tits felt.

Step up or step out.

Its Texas....we dont particularly care for transsexuals

[MadBurgerMaker]

Its Texas....we dont particularly care for transsexuals

He could be talking about his manboobs.

[Sphere]

Supremacy Clause ...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

... to executive departments...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

to ball cupping...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If state law can over-ride the policy of an executive department then the Supremacy clause is hollow.

[HissingNewt]

While this probably won't stand, it seems like they actually are trying to protect citizens from a policy they believe to be invasive of privacy.

[motiv-8]

While this probably won't stand, it seems like they actually are trying to protect citizens from a policy they believe to be invasive of privacy.

I agree. The intent is admirable even if the execution might be flawed.

[Enemy of the State]

As much as some of the pat down procedures are invasive and lack common sense, this action by Texas is blatantly unconstitutional. There is no State right to nullify Federal statutes.

The TSA isn't constitutional to begin with. Where does the federal government get the authority? States have every right to ignore unconstitutional laws.

[motiv-8]

The TSA isn't constitutional to begin with. Where does the federal government get the authority? States have every right to ignore unconstitutional laws.

Do you, or the States for that matter, get to determine what is and isn't constitutional?

[Menelik_I]

Do you, or the States for that matter, get to determine what is and isn't constitutional?

We are in 2011 ... what is DC going to do about it ? Roll in Tanks in Texas.

For one it is ridiculous and two they got Chuck Norris on their side, so good luck with that.

States can ascertain their authority and disobey laws that are frankly dumb, the Feds can't do anything about that except vent.

[PoleCat]

...States can ascertain their authority and disobey laws that are frankly dumb, the Feds can't do anything about that except vent.

No. That's not how it works. Any State law can be reviewed by a Federal judge if someone with standing challenges that law. If the judge in question finds the law to be unconstitutional then it can be blocked. Appeals are then made all the way up the chain to the SCOTUS which may accept or decline the case.

Texas has to follow the rule of law just like anyone else. The TSA my be an abomination of an agency but sadly it does have the authority to do as it needs.

[Menelik_I]

No. That's not how it works. Any State law can be reviewed by a Federal judge if someone with standing challenges that law. If the judge in question finds the law to be unconstitutional then it can be blocked. Appeals are then made all the way up the chain to the SCOTUS which may accept or decline the case.

Texas has to follow the rule of law just like anyone else. The TSA my be an abomination of an agency but sadly it does have the authority to do as it needs.

If Texas decides to ignore the TSA and get them out of the airports, then who carries the case to the SCOTUS IIRC you need standing to do that

US AG would the only person remotly with a standing I think.

@boofhead:

Perverts have a read to free welfare too

[Pyrich]

Tenth amendment in the Bill of Rights.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

New Jersey decides to tax the federal government itself, ah oh, problem, Add in a supremacy clause

"The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."


Today's representatives general thinking. Well its called supremacy, so therefore anything the Fed does trumps the tenth amendment, regardless of circumstance.


Add in the Due Process Clause from the 14th amendment to further strengthen the general consenus in the Fed that its in complete control of all it so desires.

[bushbush]

Tenth amendment in the Bill of Rights.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

New Jersey decides to tax the federal government itself, ah oh, problem, Add in a supremacy clause

Actually it was in Maryland v mcculloch where Maryland decided to tax a branch of federal bank. Justice Marshall's rationale was that since fed government represents all people of US you can't allow a state, which doesn't represent people of our states, to make a decision that can potentially harm and destroy interests of other states (taxing a federal bank which was funded by people across America). Thus unless the fed government steps outside of its constitutional scope, the state can't intefere. Here TSA is within fed govt's power to regulate commerce, I don't see how states can't intefere.

[Pyrich]

Actually it was in Maryland v mcculloch where Maryland decided to tax a branch of federal bank. Justice Marshall's rationale was that since fed government represents all people of US you can't allow a state, which doesn't represent people of our states, to make a decision that can potentially harm and destroy interests of other states (taxing a federal bank which was funded by people across America). Thus unless the fed government steps outside of its constitutional scope, the state can't intefere. Here TSA is within fed govt's power to regulate commerce, I don't see how states can't intefere.

So pat downs are delagated to the Federal level of government? And Texas is once again trying to undermine powers that are constitutionally protected and that belong to the federal government?

PS, not completely disagreeing or agreeing with eigther side. While im all for safe travel, this TSA and the like are all a can of worms imo. Gotta be a better way.

And PPS, I dont see how the states can't interfere eigther, but that kinda goes with anything the Fed does, its kinda how the system was designed.


Oh yea, and PPPS, good catch on maryland, was thinking it was Jersey for some reason, because you now... it's Jersey in all... then again, two centuries ago Maryland was probabley the countries Jersey or something

Ah well, might put a stop to this

http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=573

O....M....G... AHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAHAHAAA... ahhh. HAHAHAAAAHAAA

Shame they arrested him... He better get off.... HAHAAAAHAAAHAHAHAAA