Texas House Bans Offensive Security Pat-Downs

[M3Bahn]

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/05/13/t...ity-pat-downs/

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by M3Bahn

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/05/13/t...ity-pat-downs/

That is good news! Now let's see other jurisdictions do as much for us.

[KGB7]

About time. I think the guys that did the Pat-Downs weren't exactly enjoying molesting old man.

[scottwww]

This interview was from before the law was passed. It is still interesting and insightful.



It is no surprise that the TSA would shrug it off.

“Blogger Bob”, the TSA’s propaganda mouthpiece, writes:

“What’s our take on the Texas House of Representatives voting to ban the current TSA pat-down? Well, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2) prevents states from regulating the federal government.”

If enough states were to pass similar legislation, then let's see how they shrug it off.

[M3Bahn]

Nice while it lasted before being killed.

A conservative Washington, D.C., newspaper said this week that Texas lawmakers should have stood up to federal officials who threatened to cancel flights to Texas if the state passed a bill to outlaw controversial airport pat-downs.

The Washington Times said in an editorial that the Texas legislature "needs to grow a backbone" after state lawmakers there responded to a letter from a U.S. District Attorney saying that flights would be grounded if the bill became law by shelving it.

"A state that prides itself on its independence and the slogan 'Don’t mess with Texas' ought not to be easily cowed as the upper chamber was Wednesday," the paper said in its editorial.

"When the time came for a vote to hold the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) accountable for its despicable airport-screening practices, it only took a scary letter from a Department of Justice bureaucrat to convince enough senators to hoist the white flag," the editorial continued.

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportat...a-pat-down-ban

[11Series]

Originally Posted by scottwww

If enough states were to pass similar legislation, then let's see how they shrug it off.

This argument seems to be completely ignorant of the US Constitution.

If enough States want to change the federal law, they elect enough people to the US Congress to pass a law to change federal law. That is how the US Constitution works. This is grade school stuff.

All 50 states can pass whatever state laws they want, but it means zippo, nada, nothing unless their Congressional representitives pass changes to federal law. Federal law IS the supreme law of the land.



I swear, right wingers who hump their supposed love of the US Constitution for political propaganda, all have the least clue as to what it actually says or how it works.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by 11Series

This argument seems to be completely ignorant of the US Constitution.

If enough States want to change the federal law, they elect enough people to the US Congress to pass a law to change federal law. That is how the US Constitution works. This is grade school stuff.

All 50 states can pass whatever state laws they want, but it means zippo, nada, nothing unless their Congressional representitives pass changes to federal law. Federal law IS the supreme law of the land.



I swear, right wingers who hump their supposed love of the US Constitution for political propaganda, all have the least clue as to what it actually says or how it works.

There is more than one way to make things move. If enough states were to pass similar laws, then the US Congress would be practically forced to examine it. This is potentially the state's best means of moving Congress since their balancing power was taken away in the 17th Amendment. And I do understand the major reasons for the 17th Amendment, so there is no reason for you to explain it to me. Maybe we would be better off without the 17th Amendment.

This argument of the value of the Texas law, nullification laws, and other things could be developed further in a discussion of the 10th Amendment, building the understanding that the U.S. government has usurped the power of the states.

[11Series]

Yet another right-wing proponent of passing unconstitutional laws when they want their way -- all while demanding that all bills submitted in the House start with what part of the US Constitution authorizes that law.

Like I said, the right-wing loves the Constitution as a rhetorical device, but will piss on it by intentionally violating it at every opportunity just to get their way.

Originally Posted by scottwww

There is more than one way to make things move. If enough states were to pass similar laws, then the US Congress would be practically forced to examine it. This is potentially the state's best means of moving Congress since their balancing power was taken away in the 17th Amendment. And I do understand the major reasons for the 17th Amendment, so there is no reason for you to explain it to me. Maybe we would be better off without the 17th Amendment.

This argument of the value of the Texas law, nullification laws, and other things could be developed further in a discussion of the 10th Amendment, building the understanding that the U.S. government has usurped the power of the states.