Texas asserting their 10th amendment rights? Gives TSA middle finger?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Actually we are probably more at risk from military folks than average citizens. Fort Hood ring a bell?

Radical Muslims with military training seem to be a bad combo

You can eat a bag of dicks. At Fort Hood a terrorist in uniform, in direct contact with OBL, killed a bunch of American soldiers. Implying that that casts doubt on all service members is total horse shit.
 

Vic Vega

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2010
4,536
3
0
When the TSA operates in an airport they provide a service and the Fed bills the airport for this service. The service is contracted. The TSA has no right to be in an airport unless they are contracted to be there. Several airports have already started the process to remove the TSA by not renewing or getting out of their contracts and taking security services in house. :thumbsup:

I think this law is a good thing but the airports can fix this themselves, some already have.
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
This would only apply to flights from one Texas city to another.
Once a plane leaves Texas airspace, it automatically becomes interstate commerce.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,391
31
91
how about the 4th amendment

boarding a plane should not be considered reasonable suspicion for invasive searching.

Straightforward entry procedure != random searching through the public at large looking for "undesirables."

Amusement park rides have height restrictions. Is lining your kid up against plywood alligator an illegal search of his height?

Airplane rides are voluntary activities. If you don't like the entry procedures, don't fly. Really simple. There is no forced searching of you as there's nothing forcing you to even enter airport grounds. Just by entering the grounds you give consent for your car to be searched.

There is nothing illegal about a consensual search. That you don't like that your consent is mandatory to be given access to these areas is irrelevant.
You have no right over these properties.

Also, airspace is Federal. Whether or not the commerce is interstate, if it enters the navigable airspace, it's Federal jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
A bar can be publicly accessable, but they may still have a bouncer or check person that asks for everyone's ID before they enter.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,492
7,545
136
A bar can be publicly accessable, but they may still have a bouncer or check person that asks for everyone's ID before they enter.

In this case they get to sexually assault everyone who dares move about the country.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
Ah... Texas. Isn't that where the Bush's live?
The state that wants to secede from the union?
The state that hates BIG government?
The state that is all over Fox News crying OBAMA WONT GIVE US NO FEDERAL $$$$$?
The state God decided to send hell fire to just to see them run? :D
Is THAT the Texas we takin bout?
 

Macamus Prime

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2011
3,108
0
0
Wait, wasn't it the SAME good old boys who were screaming; "This is AH-MER-IKA! I have nothing to hide! Go ahead and search me!!!" when liberals where crying about invasion of privacy??
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
Myeaaahhh... interstate transportation is federal domain under the constitution so it's not a state's right issue. Nice try though.

I am pretty sure that State LEO can arrest Federal officials for breaking state laws, especially when we are talking about things like inappropriately touching 4 year olds an act in which any other person (including State LEO) would be called child molestation.

Personally I think that local LEO should start arresting the fuckers for violating existing laws.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
What... the right to board a big bomb carrying hundreds of people with millions of innocent people below with no screening?
I don't remember anything close being implied.

There is a huge difference between reasonable searches/screenings and unreasonable searches/screenings. A metal detector that is relatively unintrusive and xrays of your luggage is reasonable and also adequately effective. A virtual strip search and/or being physically groped, including forcing very young children to be publicly groped, is absurdly intrusive and makes us no safer. There was a proven method of defeating it before it even went into operation in the US.

Even worse is the fact that one of the big reasons they claim to need this sort of system in place was not due to a failure of the previous screening procedures. It was due to deliberate actions by Federal officials (not saying the deliberately allowed a bomb on board but they did deliberately allow the passenger to bypass screening and allowed him on the plane in violation of policy that was in place at the time).

Most people are not arguing that some sort of screening to board a plane is unreasonable, they are arguing that the existing screening is unreasonable because it is.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
Straightforward entry procedure != random searching through the public at large looking for "undesirables."

Amusement park rides have height restrictions. Is lining your kid up against plywood alligator an illegal search of his height?

Airplane rides are voluntary activities. If you don't like the entry procedures, don't fly. Really simple. There is no forced searching of you as there's nothing forcing you to even enter airport grounds. Just by entering the grounds you give consent for your car to be searched.

There is nothing illegal about a consensual search. That you don't like that your consent is mandatory to be given access to these areas is irrelevant.
You have no right over these properties.

Also, airspace is Federal. Whether or not the commerce is interstate, if it enters the navigable airspace, it's Federal jurisdiction.

The airport itself is under local jurisdiction and as such the local law enforcement has the authority to make arrests for violations of the law, including arresting Federal officials who commit crimes such as sexual assault of a juvenile and child pornography laws.

That is why you see the local police officers with the guns at the airport and not TSA.
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,240
2
76
There is a huge difference between reasonable searches/screenings and unreasonable searches/screenings. A metal detector that is relatively unintrusive and xrays of your luggage is reasonable and also adequately effective. A virtual strip search and/or being physically groped, including forcing very young children to be publicly groped, is absurdly intrusive and makes us no safer. There was a proven method of defeating it before it even went into operation in the US.

Even worse is the fact that one of the big reasons they claim to need this sort of system in place was not due to a failure of the previous screening procedures. It was due to deliberate actions by Federal officials (not saying the deliberately allowed a bomb on board but they did deliberately allow the passenger to bypass screening and allowed him on the plane in violation of policy that was in place at the time).

Most people are not arguing that some sort of screening to board a plane is unreasonable, they are arguing that the existing screening is unreasonable because it is.



this.

ponyboy might change his tune, if you had to stop and do this randomly on the interstate. ya know, in case your car was a bomb.

the only reason some people are OK with this is because they are oh so very afraid of the big bad terrorist, others just dont fly much so they just dont care.

I dont fly, unless I have to, and this BS is the main reason.

bu tmost people in this country are obviously willing to sit idly by and let the administration take right after right, guilty until proven innocent, in many ways, this is just the most apparant. the extension of warrentless domestic spying without cause is probably the worst
 
Last edited:

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
I am pretty sure that State LEO can arrest Federal officials for breaking state laws, especially when we are talking about things like inappropriately touching 4 year olds an act in which any other person (including State LEO) would be called child molestation.

Personally I think that local LEO should start arresting the fuckers for violating existing laws.

They can indeed. Texas has seen several feuds between country sheriff's and federal law enforcement, resulting in federal agents being arrested and locked up in the county jail. Since sheriff's are elected by the people, they are the ultimate law enforcement official in their county.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
The bill has been pulled.

HS/DOJ/TSA threatened to shut down Texas airports while waiting for the courts(which would have been Federal Courts) to smack down Texas' law. An extended shut down of Texas airports would have bankrupted SW, AA, ConUnited.

The bill was also pulled because while it originally had enough support in the State Senate, the Lt. Gov. actively persuaded people to drop their support for it.
 
Last edited:

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
When the TSA operates in an airport they provide a service and the Fed bills the airport for this service. The service is contracted. The TSA has no right to be in an airport unless they are contracted to be there. Several airports have already started the process to remove the TSA by not renewing or getting out of their contracts and taking security services in house. :thumbsup:

I think this law is a good thing but the airports can fix this themselves, some already have.

Just to comment on your later comment about airports ditching the TSA. There WAS a provision that allowed that. No airport as of now can ditch the TSA. Theres still the question of whether those that had already ditched the TSA will have to revert back to the TSA.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,391
31
91
this.

ponyboy might change his tune, if you had to stop and do this randomly on the interstate. ya know, in case your car was a bomb.

An individual can control whose car he gets into, and who he lets into his car, so he has no need for security screening to have a reasonable sense of security.
An individual cannot control who he flies with. A terrorist can take advantage of this to place himself on the same flight carrying the means to kill everyone on board.

Try to keep up.

I dont fly, unless I have to, and this BS is the main reason.

LOL'ing at the scaredy cat.