Another egregious breach of the Constitution
Rockin'PJGirl
Posts: 15
Steve Watson
January 23, 2012
In preventing Kentucky Senator Rand Paul from flying to Washington this morning, the TSA directly violated the law as written in the US Constitution.
The Constitution specifically protects federal lawmakers from being detained while en route to Washington DC.
Article I, Section 6 states:
“The Senators and Representatives…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same….”
Rand Paul was travelling from his home in Louisville to attend a session in the Senate today.
This is the reason that TSA officials have since put out the talking point in the media that Rand Paul was never officially detained, despite the fact that the Senator himself confirmed that he was told to sit in a cubicle and wait without any indication of when he would be allowed to leave.
The Senate is back in session at 2 p.m., and votes are scheduled for 4:30 p.m.
Senator Paul was allowed to board a second flight after a separate screening by TSA agents, however, it remains to be seen whether he will make it to the capital in time.
January 23, 2012
In preventing Kentucky Senator Rand Paul from flying to Washington this morning, the TSA directly violated the law as written in the US Constitution.
The Constitution specifically protects federal lawmakers from being detained while en route to Washington DC.
Article I, Section 6 states:
“The Senators and Representatives…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same….”
Rand Paul was travelling from his home in Louisville to attend a session in the Senate today.
This is the reason that TSA officials have since put out the talking point in the media that Rand Paul was never officially detained, despite the fact that the Senator himself confirmed that he was told to sit in a cubicle and wait without any indication of when he would be allowed to leave.
The Senate is back in session at 2 p.m., and votes are scheduled for 4:30 p.m.
Senator Paul was allowed to board a second flight after a separate screening by TSA agents, however, it remains to be seen whether he will make it to the capital in time.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
for example, what was the reason given for detaining him?
did he have proof of who he was and what he does?
not everyone in this country would recognize the man
i know that its still a breech, but considering
the way things go these days
comparatively, its not that much of one, really
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
but my initial reaction to this is "pick your battles wisely, this ain't one of them"
who's fault is it?
he should not be exempt from the procedures that apply to the rest of us
after all, wasn't he a part of the legislation that heightened the security levels for air travel?
he knows the rules
was he just being a pompous a$$?
could be
he should have complied
the rest of us would have to
if it was a national emergency i'm sure things would have been different or other travel arrangements made
i don't think its worth fretting over
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
sure, but it happens ALL the damn time, and in ways that are much more egregious than this.
This.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
--TSA (Patriot Act) overrides the Constitution.— he should have read it more carefully. Once he set off that alarm he was subject to the Patriot Act.
THAT is something to be up in arms about. They can get away with it because since 9/11 we are in a constant state of "war" and the US is now defined as a "battlefield," which essentially screws the Bill of Rights right up the arse annd allows the militarization of the police state.
There is no over-riding the Constitution without an amending it, legally speaking, which requires much more than a majority vote-- it also requires ratification by the states. Of course, lots of people think that acts of Congress signed into law permit sections of the Constitution to be null and void once signed into law. Considering there are thousands of unconstitutional laws in place that went unchecked by either the executive or judicial branches, is there even a Constitution left to uphold? Of course there is. What needs to change is people's understanding of the Supreme Law of the land, and that most of the bills that have been written should have never been proposed, let alone signed into law.
dannnng Vinny do you and Mike have you own law firm ? you two are a great source for information.
Godfather.
they don't know who they are messin with...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The moment he walked into that airport facility he was subject to the laws establishing the TSA. The TSA didn’t prevent him from leaving the airport, his actions prevented him because he refused to play by the rules Congress established for all people traveling through US airports. By refusing to adhere to these rules the Patriot Act, in effect, overrode his Constitution right to leave that airport.
Many people warned of the conflict the Patriot Act would have with the Constitution but fear allowed it to be passed.
It's really nothing special, GF. One day I just came to the realization that there are so many laws-- too many bad ones, and both good and bad laws just seem so unevenly enforced. Most of them are well-intentioned, many are disguised as well-intentioned but end up rigging the game in someone else's favor. It actually made me wonder whether it was even "legal" to have so many laws, which led me to understanding that a strict interpretation of the Supreme Law, The Constitution, limits the ability of government as well as the people who wish to use the force of government to plunder others to meet their own ends. At least it provides for the governance to be more localized where laws can change much easier if they are undesirable, but still provides universal protection of our rights as outlined in the bill of rights. I don't see why anyone argues in favor of taking governance away from themselves and granting it to a much more powerful, stagnant, and corruptible body.
There's always this talk about regulation and de-regulation, and there's so much argument. What about RE-regulation? How about wiping out most of the laws that are out there and put in place the most basic laws with the easiest of interpretations that no one else has a right to anyone else's life or property unless they have deprived someone else of those same rights? Under this system: murder, assault, coercion, extortion, fraud, theft, and vandalism would not be permissible.
The Patriot Act itself is unconstitutional, unfortunately, neither of our presidents since it has been written has cared, and the courts have not struck it down. It's the type of resolution that the Constitution forbids writing to start with.
Godfather.
Do you know anything about the Patriot Act?
Rand Paul calls TSA 'clueless' over random pat-downs.....
One of our country's most ridiculous initiatives is the system of random pat-downs employed by TSA workers at airports.
They almost inevitably produce nonsensical results, such as 6-year-old girls getting frisked, while suspects on the federal government's terrorist watch list board the plane freely.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-0 ... es-pistole
The constitution already has rules in place that gives politicians special treatment.
Article 1 section 6 states that in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same.
Rand Paul wasn't doing it because he thought he was entitled as a Senator. If you could accuse him of anything, it could be exploiting a situation to make a political statement. Good for him.
Fuck the TSA.
Right. What's a small violation of the Constitution?
No biggie. :roll:
We're about half a generation from the end of American freedom. Christ.
This is correct. If Congress is in session, Rand Paul can run over an old lady with his Yukon, and he can not be detained.
Foe button engaged, b/c life's too short to read this crap.
You and your supporters need to take a moment to read the Patriot Act in which Congress gave these powers to our intelligence agencies, DoD and Homeland Security. You can bitch about TSA all day long, they're just the worker bees. You could even make them change their 'practices' on certain people, but you don't get to change the Bill. In that respect - 'In defense of National Security' - trumped his status as a politician. He'll probably get a letter of apology and be assured it will never happen again, but the policy that allows such practices is still part of the Bill and can be re-instituted at any point.
You may also want to take a read of the 2011 DoD Appropriation Bill which was suppose to be about funding programs, however, Congress gave military trial authorization to the DoD to detained US citizens suspected of terrorism. That almighty 'freedom of speech' guaranteed under the Constitution just became a discretionary right, as the DoD defines protests as a form of terrorism. Ruby Ridge would have been defined as terrorism. Groups like them can now be classified as enemy combatants.
Here's the bigger picture being missing by all those screaming what about the Constitution. Vinny's right, the Patriot Act on its own is unconstitutional because it subverts the powers of the Constitution. The Bush Administration knew this, they also knew they would never get a Constitutional amendment passed that allowed such language that is in the Patriot Act because it would have been challenged by every legal mind in America. So they had Congress pass it as a National Security bill under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security and the Intelligence Czar (remember that newly created position). Please don't forget the power behind the Patriot Act, they can bug your phones, read you mail, track your financial activities, make warrantless searches, make public offices turn over your records, etc., etc., what politician is going to give up that type of power, because some TSA worker was doing their job?
You hear terrorism, you automatic go Arab, Muslim, Islam, but, these Bills were never limited to that sole purpose; and just like Rand Paul, we all go about our daily business until we get caught under that umbrella, then we're ready to call bullshit, but its too late because its law; and these laws make it clear that -In defense of National Security- trumps your Constitutional rights.
Joseph McCarthy will be loving this. This is just The House of Un-American Activities under a different name. Fucking fascists.
How is what he said 'crap'? Do you think all the rights Americans enjoy were handed to them from above?
I take it you were absent from school the day they studied 'A People's History of The United States'?
You are an elected official in an airport on your way to your job of making the freaking laws of the land.
The machine goes off when you walk through it, and naturally you know there is a mistake and request to try it again, which he did, but was refused a second try and put through a pat down.
Is that not embarassing enough? To be denied a simple request to try to walk through it again when you are an elected official on your way to Washington?
I would be embarrassed as hell and given his political beliefs, how could he not argue with the situation.
Machine beeped. take your pat down and walk on.
I'd be more pissed being behind him in line.
have you had a discussion with the libertarians on this board!? ... hahaha ... they will harp on one word even tho it has very little to do with the overall discussion just for the sake of proving a point ...
two things:
1. this is the patriot act at work ... i speculate that some of you wouldn't care if this happened to a muslim person ...
2. the constitution has been violated from the get go ... people have been denied their constitutional rights since its inception ... not to say that it is right ... but this shouldn't be news to anyone ...