I still think that Texas is farked up for teaching creationism as science.

/Stopped clocks can be right.

TSA is right. I don't like the pat down thing, but TSA is correct in their assumption. The writer of this article is a moran.

:|

Well, it does. (new window)

Why should the three-letter-acronym "TSA" change anything?

PC LOAD LETTER: Texans are morons for trying this route. There's enough to challenge it without going down the derp route of "oh screw the Federal Law, we'll just make it illegal".

I'd expect nothing else from that bass-akwards state

Guidette Frankentits: PC LOAD LETTER: Texans are morons for trying this route. There's enough to challenge it without going down the derp route of "oh screw the Federal Law, we'll just make it illegal".

I'd expect nothing else from that bass-akwards state

You have to remember this is a state that has lawmakers that want to secede from the United States. I wouldn't expect for them to do this any other way.

I was considering tweeting this, but then I remembered I do not want to be put on 'that other preferred member's list'.

The TSA is technically correct.

What the blog is saying (poorly) is that the actions of the TSA are unconstitutional, so state imposition is legal because federal law is not supreme if it's not constitutional.

Interesting how the TSA can claim Constitutional authority in on breath, and ignore the Constitution in the next.

TSA perverted molestation searches are unconstitutional:
Fourth Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


No Fly Lists are unconstitutional:
Fifth Admendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

As long as they are upholding part of the Constitution, they should probably go all the way (instead of ignoring the parts they obviously don't like).

jigger: What the blog is saying (poorly) is that the actions of the TSA are unconstitutional, so state imposition is legal because federal law is not supreme if it's not constitutional.

If only there were some system for deciding questions like this. Ah well.

BZZZZZZT Wrong. Read the Supremacy Clause carefully.

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." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

Only constitutional laws are the supreme law of the land. Unconstitutional laws are null and void and it is the duty of that states to oppose and thwart the enforcement of those laws.

Citing the Supremacy Clause simply begs the question, regardless of what twisted logic you try to use.

State Nullification FAQ (new window)

"Here's an extremely basic summary:

1) The states preceded the Union. The Declaration of Independence speaks of "free and independent states" that "have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do." The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of 13 states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states "retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence"; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to "retain" it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted. The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.

2) In the American system no government is sovereign. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.

3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power. No other arrangement makes sense. No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power. In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created. James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800.....

...As Jefferson warned, if the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, it will continue to grow - regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. In his Report of 1800, Madison reminded Virginians and Americans at large that the judicial branch was not infallible, and that some remedy must be found for those cases in which all three branches of the federal government exceed their constitutional limits."

qorkfiend: The TSA is technically correct.

"Technically" in that their statment is true if they are enforcing a federal statute and the state law is interfering.

"Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that 'a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute' and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). Similarly, we have held that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme." Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1050 (1993)."

But their invasive pat-down procedure is not a part of any federal statute. It's simply policy created by TSA. And as such, unless the TSA can cite an actual federal statute codifyng the invasive pat-down procedure itself, the TSA's use of that procedure does not override state law barring it within that state. Likewise it is not "impossible" for TSA to comply, it's just inconvenient, and that's not a bar to compliance.

PC LOAD LETTER: Texans are morons for trying this route. There's enough to challenge it without going down the derp route of "oh screw the Federal Law, we'll just make it illegal".

This.

Crosshair: Blisteringly off point screed about 10th Amendment and Supremacy Clause issues involved in Texas attempt to criminalize searches by TSA agents

The final arbiter of whether TSA searches are constitutional or not is the federal Supreme Court. And if the federal Supreme Court says they're constitutional, they're constitutional regardless of what Texas says.

Trolljegeren: Interesting how the TSA can claim Constitutional authority in on breath, and ignore the Constitution in the next.

TSA perverted molestation searches are unconstitutional:
Fourth Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


No Fly Lists are unconstitutional:
Fifth Admendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

As long as they are upholding part of the Constitution, they should probably go all the way (instead of ignoring the parts they obviously don't like).

And we have a Supreme Court exactly for this reason. It's not up to states to pick and choose what federal laws to follow based on what they "think" is unconstitutional.

Basic civics, people...Texas, I'm looking at you.

I've come to the conclusion that the whole teabagger movement is just a way to enrich lawyers, as all the insane teabagger laws will be challenged, and lawyers for the ACLU, States and Feds will all get rich.

The constitution is hated by teabaggers everywhere.

Alien Robot: But their invasive pat-down procedure is not a part of any federal statute. It's simply policy created by TSA. And as such, unless the TSA can cite an actual federal statute codifyng the invasive pat-down procedure itself, the TSA's use of that procedure does not override state law barring it within that state.

If TSA is acting within the scope of its organic act, it's not at all clear that the state statute would supersede the federal regulatory action. Surely some case has dealt with the issue before. And my money says the Court said a federal regulatory agency acting according to its organic act supersedes a state law.

I forgot to add a line in my previous post: the Supreme Court decides whether what TSA is doing is constitutional. And if they say it's constitutional, then it is. And if they say it's not, then it isn't. Neither Texas nor any other state has any say in the matter.

So, Texans want to ignore any Federal law they don't like, but will whine to high heaven if the Feds don't give them lots of money for fighting Texas forest fires?

Corvus: Crosshair: Unconstitutional laws are null and void and it is the duty of that states to oppose and thwart the enforcement of those laws.

What court called the TSA procedures unconstitutional?

*golf clap*

Weaver95: captain_heroic44: Crosshair: Blisteringly off point screed about 10th Amendment and Supremacy Clause issues involved in Texas attempt to criminalize searches by TSA agents

The final arbiter of whether TSA searches are constitutional or not is the federal Supreme Court. And if the federal Supreme Court says they're constitutional, they're constitutional regardless of what Texas says.

so what happens when every state in the union decides that they've had enough and simply throws TSA agents into jail cells?

Not gonna happen. But as we approach the point where all 50 states are so opposed to TSA searches that they were willing to jail TSA agents, political pressure would lead Congress to act long beforehand.

I'm working on a time machine that will transport dumbasses like Crosshair back to the Articles of Confederation era United States. They'll be so happy there! And I'll be happy to see them go, too.

Weaver95: captain_heroic44: Crosshair: Blisteringly off point screed about 10th Amendment and Supremacy Clause issues involved in Texas attempt to criminalize searches by TSA agents

The final arbiter of whether TSA searches are constitutional or not is the federal Supreme Court. And if the federal Supreme Court says they're constitutional, they're constitutional regardless of what Texas says.

so what happens when every state in the union decides that they've had enough and simply throws TSA agents into jail cells?

I guess we will find out if the Texas National Guard is as tough as they say they are.

captain_heroic44: The final arbiter of whether TSA searches are constitutional or not is the federal Supreme Court.

Careful. HB-1938 does not make TSA searches illegal. It only makes certain invasive procedures illegal. TSA is free to continue all manner of searches as long as they don't touch some dude's junk in Texas while doing so. X-rays would still be legal. Nude-scans would still be legal. Non-invasive pat-downs would still be legal.

unyon: I don't fully understand the relationship between American state and federal government, but doesn't Texas have the right to do this since it is just policy?

Probably not. TSA exists because of an act of Congress called an "organic act." That law defines what TSA is, gives TSA the power to do what it does. Assuming 1) TSA searches are within the scope of that organic act, and 2) the searches comply with the 4th Amendment, then most likely the Supremacy Clause acts to prevent Texas from prosecuting TSA agents for doing their lawfully prescribed federal duty.

Trolljegeren: Interesting how the TSA can claim Constitutional authority in on breath, and ignore the Constitution in the next.

TSA perverted molestation searches are unconstitutional:
Fourth Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


No Fly Lists are unconstitutional:
Fifth Admendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

As long as they are upholding part of the Constitution, they should probably go all the way (instead of ignoring the parts they obviously don't like).

I know that your name has troll in it but I'll bite, with respect to the no fly list issue violating the fifth amendment here is your due process: Link (new window)

I like how people have begun using the 10th amendment like they just discovered some secret while completely ignoring things like the 14th amendment.

Alien Robot: But their invasive pat-down procedure is not a part of any federal statute. It's simply policy created by TSA. And as such, unless the TSA can cite an actual federal statute codifyng the invasive pat-down procedure itself, the TSA's use of that procedure does not override state law barring it within that state. Likewise it is not "impossible" for TSA to comply, it's just inconvenient, and that's not a bar to compliance.

If the policies were adopted under rule-making powers granted under a federal statute, then they are absolutely covered by federal supremacy. Now, I have no idea if this is the case, and I think a challenge of the Constitutionality of the policies themselves might be successful. But Texas doesn't have a leg to stand on going this route.

Alien Robot: captain_heroic44: The final arbiter of whether TSA searches are constitutional or not is the federal Supreme Court.

Careful. HB-1938 does not make TSA searches illegal. It only makes certain invasive procedures illegal. TSA is free to continue all manner of searches as long as they don't touch some dude's junk in Texas while doing so. X-rays would still be legal. Nude-scans would still be legal. Non-invasive pat-downs would still be legal.

If the touching of junk proceeds from a lawful TSA regulation, then the federal law probably trumps the Texas prohibition. Texas does not have the right to keep federal agents from performing their congressionally authorized duties.