Another egregious breach of the Constitution

Rockin'PJGirl

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.

StillHere

we may need more details
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

he still stands

i don't know... i'm a freedom-loving compassionate liberatarian...

but my initial reaction to this is "pick your battles wisely, this ain't one of them"

Rockin'PJGirl

a violation of the constitution is a violation. plain and simple.

Rockin'PJGirl

during the normal screening, the machine detected an "abnormality." Paul asked to walk through the gate again and TSA refused, demanding a pat down. Paul refused the pat down and was detained.

StillHere

well then
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

he still stands

Rockin'PJGirl wrote:

a violation of the constitution is a violation. plain and simple.

sure, but it happens ALL the damn time, and in ways that are much more egregious than this.

inlet13

Rockin'PJGirl wrote:

a violation of the constitution is a violation. plain and simple.

This.

puremagic

Rockin'PJGirl wrote:

a violation of the constitution is a violation. plain and simple.

--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.

he still stands

puremagic wrote:

Rockin'PJGirl wrote:

a violation of the constitution is a violation. plain and simple.

--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.

VINNY GOOMBA

puremagic wrote:

Rockin'PJGirl wrote:

a violation of the constitution is a violation. plain and simple.

--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.

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.

Godfather.

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

puremagic wrote:

Rockin'PJGirl wrote:

a violation of the constitution is a violation. plain and simple.

--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.

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.

gimmesometruth27

looks like the tsa is gonna get defunded for this...

they don't know who they are messin with...

puremagic

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

puremagic wrote:

Rockin'PJGirl wrote:

a violation of the constitution is a violation. plain and simple.

--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.

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.

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.

VINNY GOOMBA

Godfather. wrote:

dannnng Vinny do you and Mike have you own law firm ? you two are a great source for information.

Godfather.

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.

VINNY GOOMBA

puremagic wrote:

Many people warned of the conflict the Patriot Act would have with the Constitution but fear allowed it to be passed.

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.

Rockin'PJGirl

The TSA does not and should not trump the United States Constitution. And to those who say he is subject to the same laws as us, yes, unless he is on his way to Washington. Then, he cannot be detained, legally.

Godfather.

TSA is a double edge knife, it's good to know we have tight security at our airports but at the same time I think they abuse the power or the power they think they have, and who ever screwed this guy should be looking for a new job now if the G-man's buddies have anything to do with it.
Godfather.

Jeanwah

Rockin'PJGirl wrote:

The TSA does not and should not trump the United States Constitution. And to those who say he is subject to the same laws as us, yes, unless he is on his way to Washington. Then, he cannot be detained, legally.

Do you know anything about the Patriot Act?

MookiesLaw

June 23 2011

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.

Commy

eh. the constitutions is just a piece of paper. i would say nothing, hardly any of the rights were actually given to any of us. the rights we enjoy today took massive popular movements like the civil rights movement and woman's suffrage and hopefully the occupy movement today.,