Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    SamIngram            01-23-2012, 12:17 PM Reply   
Sen. Rand Paul ‘detained’ by TSA in Nashville, TSA denies

White House sides with TSA in Rand Paul standoff

So let me get this straight... Rand Paul failed a body scan because the scanner showed an ‘anomaly’ on the first scan. They then selected him for a full body pat-down which he refused. He then was supposedly not detained, but not allowed to enter a secure area. So he allegedly leaves.

What next? Does he take a private charter to DC? No, he goes and buys another ticket, passes through TSA again, with no 'anomaly' and is allowed to get on a plane. So in one instance he is deemed a security risk and told that he can't get on unless he submits to a full a body pat-down. Then they allow him through later in the same airport on the same day... Why doesn't a terrorist do this? I thought he was a security risk...

And what about the Constitution?

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 6 - Compensation

(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.) They 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; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

TSA says, ""When an irregularity is found during the TSA screening process, it must be resolved prior to allowing a passenger to proceed to the secure area of the airport,", "Passengers who refuse to complete the screening process cannot be granted access to the secure area in order to ensure the safety of others traveling."

TSA said in a statement that "the passenger," Rand Paul, "has since rebooked on another flight and was rescreened without incident."

Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary stated, "I think it is absolutely essential that we take necessary actions to ensure that air travel is safe."

How does any of this make sense? The next time I want to blow up a plane I guess I'll just try to make it through the full body scanner with the bomb. If they see it on the scanner, I'll not consent to a full body pat-down. I will leave, buy another ticket, and try again... try, try again.
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       01-23-2012, 12:45 PM Reply   
In other words this grandstanding tool went through once with a metal item hidden in his clothes. Failed the test and made a big deal out of it with cameras and press everywhere.

Then he goes back, changes into clothes that don't trigger the scanner and flies home like nothing ever happened.

Why don't all the Ron Paul idiots defend this guy?
Old    SamIngram            01-23-2012, 1:03 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdtx View Post
In other words this grandstanding tool went through once with a metal item hidden in his clothes. Failed the test and made a big deal out of it with cameras and press everywhere.

Then he goes back, changes into clothes that don't trigger the scanner and flies home like nothing ever happened.

Why don't all the Ron Paul idiots defend this guy?
That could be the case, I don't know...

As Fly315 has said before, I have a reading comprehension problem, so can you please explain what the last sentence of your post means?
Old    Train (ttrigo)      Join Date: Dec 2004       01-23-2012, 1:08 PM Reply   
'Why don't all the Ron Paul idiots defend this guy? '

other than being his dad, what does Ron Paul have to do with this story?
calling people who disagree with your views idiots, says tons about your character. classy.
Old    SamIngram            01-23-2012, 1:15 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttrigo View Post
'Why don't all the Ron Paul idiots defend this guy? '

other than being his dad, what does Ron Paul have to do with this story?
calling people who disagree with your views idiots, says tons about your character. classy.
Other than that, what does it mean? What is he asking? Is he saying that all the "Ron Paul idiots" don't defend him? I don't understand. I assume it was typo, but would like to know for sure.
Old    Adam Curtis (acurtis_ttu)      Join Date: May 2004       01-23-2012, 1:17 PM Reply   
obviously done for publicity.

Some people feel very violated by all the TSA pat downs/body scans, ect....
typcially it's the people who dont' fly much ( IMO)

I fly alot, I personally dont' mind being "violated" a bit to ensure my safety.

Last edited by acurtis_ttu; 01-23-2012 at 1:18 PM. Reason: none
Old    SamIngram            01-23-2012, 1:26 PM Reply   
Rand Paul on TSA detainment: ‘I was barked at: ‘Do not leave the cubicle!”

Here is an update on the story... part of my original post is incorrect and was based on the other news article linked.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       01-23-2012, 1:48 PM Reply   
This is stupid. They used to let you go back and try again. Or they could have just used the wand.
Old    SamIngram            01-24-2012, 9:12 AM Reply   
Here is another update on the "Grandstanding Tool", the publicity hound, he is the Kardashian of the senate!

The guy has a lot of nerve! In his OP/ED he advocates for our 4th Amendment Rights and the preservation of our personal liberties! This "Grandstanding Tool" must be stopped!
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-24-2012, 4:46 PM Reply   
Sam, the statement you put in bold only applies if there's a "call of the house" IIRC and detention is not the same as being arrested. They can detain him for up to 24 hours without violating his rights.

Look I agree that TSA is overboard these days and might make some comments to make them uncomfortable patting me down.

I thought Democrats wanted us to be more like Europe, and isn't the transportation security over there a public-private partnership with performance based contracting?
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       01-24-2012, 4:47 PM Reply   
The first article I read on this stated that Rand, when questioned about an "anomaly" in his knee, raised his pant leg and showed his bare knee area... To which the TSA goons responded that they didn't want to see his knee, and illegally detained and attempted to search him... In violation of the Fourth Amendment and Article 1 Section 6. This man's constitutional rights were violated by a criminal organization.
Old    SamIngram            01-24-2012, 6:44 PM Reply   
I think you're wrong Mik, do a google search for Scott Bungard, very similar situation, but in AZ on a state level.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-25-2012, 12:07 AM Reply   
I am totally fine with the TSA searching me to ride on a plane. I am certain the constitution does not protect me from search when getting on a plane or going to a ball game.

What bothers me is the fact that they ask for my POS ID which can be available to anyone for $200. My ID is only useful if I am honest. Its an insult that they ask for it and stare at it.
Old    SamIngram            01-25-2012, 6:04 AM Reply   
When does it protect you then? What other times can your rights be abridged? Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-25-2012, 6:33 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
I think you're wrong Mik, do a google search for Scott Bungard, very similar situation, but in AZ on a state level.
The law you cited does NOT apply at the state level, only to members of Congress. Your example is about a State specific provision not the US Constitutional provision as it applies to Congress.

And by "in session" we are not talking about a time of year but actual session when Congress is conducting business. The moment they adjourn for the day the Congressmember can be arrested. In this case Session was not actually opened for the day so there is no legal immunity.

Last edited by norcalrider; 01-25-2012 at 6:41 AM.
Old    SamIngram            01-25-2012, 7:53 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
The law you cited does NOT apply at the state level, only to members of Congress. Your example is about a State specific provision not the US Constitutional provision as it applies to Congress.

And by "in session" we are not talking about a time of year but actual session when Congress is conducting business. The moment they adjourn for the day the Congressmember can be arrested. In this case Session was not actually opened for the day so there is no legal immunity.
No, Mik, I was referring to the AZ Law that the Scot Bungard story applies too.. No really? I made the example, I know what it applies to... thanks for telling me what it is about... The state Constitution was directly modeled after the Constitution.

But I digress, I'm not going to allow you in my book club unless you actually read the book...

There are several instances in history that show that you are wrong... I will find them for you on today's flight..

In summary, you are wrong! The main intent of the law is that a member of the legislature can't be either harassed or intimidated while serving. Otherwise, an over overzealous police officer could really gum up the works.

Last edited by SamIngram; 01-25-2012 at 7:56 AM.
Old    SamIngram            01-25-2012, 8:24 AM Reply   
I was technically wrong regarding which part of the Constitution protects the Senators from arrest, but was correct in the fact that they are protected.

United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 178 (1966)

United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 177–179, 180–183 (1966); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 502 (1969)

United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 507 (1972)

Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1, 28 (1808)

Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 203 (1881)

Gravel v. United States, 408 U. S. 606, 618– 619 (1972)

You can read here for further explanation, but basically, it is very, very hard to arrest a US Senator for ANY reason, ANYWHERE!
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-25-2012, 8:28 AM Reply   
Tell that to Patrick Kennedy.

Even you source says you're wrong, "Privilege From Arrest
This clause is practically obsolete. It applies only to arrests in civil suits, which were still common in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted. It does not apply to service of process in either civil or criminal cases. Nor does it apply to arrest in any criminal case. The phrase “treason, felony or breach of the peace” is interpreted to withdraw all criminal offenses from the operation of the privilege."

Even the cases you cited support my position. Gravel v US, session in the process of convening and formed a sub-committee to enter the documents into record without a quorum.

I know you think you're the expert on this stuff, but give it up your legal analysis is weak.

Last edited by norcalrider; 01-25-2012 at 8:37 AM.
Old    SamIngram            01-25-2012, 9:06 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Tell that to Patrick Kennedy.

Even you source says you're wrong, "Privilege From Arrest
This clause is practically obsolete. It applies only to arrests in civil suits, which were still common in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted. It does not apply to service of process in either civil or criminal cases. Nor does it apply to arrest in any criminal case. The phrase “treason, felony or breach of the peace” is interpreted to withdraw all criminal offenses from the operation of the privilege."

Even the cases you cited support my position. Gravel v US, session in the process of convening and formed a sub-committee to enter the documents into record without a quorum.

I know you think you're the expert on this stuff, but give it up your legal analysis is weak.
Yes, but did you bother to read the rest of source?

What about the section on Privilege of Speech or Debate?? Did you read that? I suspect not...

I even said I was wrong, but I am still right, read the rest of it...

I am not an expert by any means, but I am learning...
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-25-2012, 9:21 AM Reply   
I did read it and have read all of that stuff previously. None of that relates to the Rand Paul situation as he was never arrested nor is it pertinent in the case of the AZ Senate Majority Leader who is a corrupt individual that has abused the system his entire life. Not to mention Rand was never under arrest. Detention does not equal arrest nor does one have a right to fly, just as we do not have a right to drive.

Look I'm pretty libertarian but the practical application of our laws does not fit the rhetoric you have presented. There might be a case for the 4th amendment here but these other provisions are simply not applicable in my opinion. If I were Rand's attorney, I would certainly raise some of them in the civil case against TSA but in reality it is a losing argument in the eyes of the courts.
Old    SamIngram            01-25-2012, 9:34 AM Reply   
All that stuff huh? Sure you have... Thanks for your opinion, I appreciate it.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-25-2012, 10:08 AM Reply   
Sam, don't pretend to know my background or my career.
Old    SamIngram            01-25-2012, 11:17 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Sam, don't pretend to know my background or my career.
Huh? Your background or your career? When did I even imply that I cared? What does that have to do with it? You are the one implying things. You stated that I thought I was expert, when I have never done so. I don't think an expert on Constitutional Law would discuss it on a wakeboarding forum or be taking free classes online.

Please don't pretend I care what your background is...
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-25-2012, 11:37 AM Reply   
Don't be so quick to dismiss people who disagree with you, they may have studied Con Law.
Old    SamIngram            01-25-2012, 12:03 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Don't be so quick to dismiss people who disagree with you, they may have studied Con Law.
I don't think you can "dismiss" someone on the internet unless, maybe, possibly, you have the ability to control the forum, otherwise it is an open discussion and anyone, from any background can reply. If you are an expert on Constitutional Law or have studied it try added to the discussion versus just saying that you are wrong. I try to learn everything that I can from anyone that is willing to teach it. I find it very interesting that I can find at least a hundred different articles both on the internet and in print that cite Article 1, Section 6 in reference to Rand Paul, however, I think we have confirmed here that it does not apply. I truly think that is interesting...

Furthermore, based on the existentialist mindset that is being taught today, I'm not entirely sure we have a definitive source for what actually applies and what doesn't. If you ask a professor at Harvard Law something, I can find another professor at Yale Law that says something different. It seems as though everything is now what we feel or think...
Old    SamIngram            01-25-2012, 3:19 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Don't be so quick to dismiss people who disagree with you, they may have studied Con Law.
Since you have studied Constitution Law, can you please tell me what gives the Federal Government the right to create and then grant power to the TSA. TSA is clearly outside the Enumerated Powers and I am unaware of any amendments that mention TSA.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-25-2012, 4:42 PM Reply   
TSA was created by legislation which is a power granted to Congress in Article 1. More specifically Section 1 and Section 8 "General Welfare Clause" and "Necessary and Proper Clause." Then you look to the administration by the President from Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, "that the laws shall be faithfully executed."

If you want to challenge TSA you're taking on the entire bureaucracy which was started by President Washington. There was no bureaucracy established in the Constitution but it didn't take long to realize we needed to establish offices to execute functions enumerated and implied in the Constitution.
Old    SamIngram            01-25-2012, 5:10 PM Reply   
On iPad so it's short...

So the Feds can legally do what ever they want, in your opinion, as long as they created the law giving them power to do so? And the Constitution, including the bill of rights is meaningless, if otherwise legislated against?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-25-2012, 5:58 PM Reply   
Sam, the constitution doesn't mean much. The TSA is for the welfare of the public. And that's within the latitude of the general welfare clause because you are traveling on airlines. We've been given Constitution rights of privacy in our cars. But it's a simple argument that driving is a privilege not a right and the right to privacy could easily be taken away.

We have a Constitution right to privacy in our homes and protection from warrantless invasion, but guess what.... The SCOTUS took that away by claiming if the police hear evidence being destroyed then they have the right of warrantless invasion. That alone should prove that Constitution rights are easily erased by a bunch of lawyers dancing on the head of a pin. The public agrees with this, and that's why the Constitution is no more than a malleable rulebook that can be molded to the beliefs of the majority.

The SCOTUS has even ruled that prosecuters have no obligation to reveal evidence to the innocence if the defendant. I can't think of anything more unconstitution than a govt that prosecutes holding evidence of innocence in secret.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-25-2012, 10:46 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
So the Feds can legally do what ever they want, in your opinion, as long as they created the law giving them power to do so? And the Constitution, including the bill of rights is meaningless, if otherwise legislated against?
Hardly, I just think there is a lot of law and legal precedent that must be worked through prior to reaching your conclusions. I'm a proponent of where you want to go in your argument but it isn't as simple these days.
Old    SamIngram            01-26-2012, 9:06 AM Reply   
These are not my words, but I agree with them.

Your law professors doesn’t go by The Constitution – they go by supreme Court decisions. That is what they were told to do in law school.
I understand that if the Constitution means whatever a majority of judges on the supreme Court say it means, then we have no Constitution at all. We have rule by 5 judges and this is not what was intended.

So I go by original intent of the Constitution – that intent as proved by the document itself, the Federalist Papers, Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention, and an old American dictionary for word meanings. Sometimes we must also consult other contemporaneous original source documents to learn original intent. That is the Constitution which was ratified.

Supreme Court jurisprudence – that enormous body of supreme Court opinions – bears no resemblance to the original intent of Our Constitution.

As far as President Washington, Washington’s Cabinet consisted of a Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of War, and the Attorney General. Those are all constitutional offices.

More regarding the all inclusive General Welfare Clause (from the link above - not my words):

The “general welfare” clause is not a blank check which gives Congress power to pass any law they want which they say promotes the “general welfare”.

Both Madison and Hamilton squarely addressed and expressly rejected the notion that the “general welfare” clause constitutes a general grant of power to Congress. In Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras), Madison denounced as an “absurd” “misconstruction” the notion that

…the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare….

In refuting this “misconstruction”, Madison pointed out that the first paragraph of Art. I, Sec. 8 employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms. Madison also said:

…Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity…

Madison was emphatic: He said it was “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; and to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” to provide for “the common defense and general welfare”, is “an absurdity”.

In Federalist No. 83 (7th para), Hamilton said:

…The plan of the [constitutional] convention declares that the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended… [italics added]

So! It is clear from Madison and Hamilton that The Constitution does not bestow any general or unlimited grant of legislative power to Congress! And what else did Madison and Hamilton say about the “enumerated” powers of the federal government? In Federalist No. 45 (9th para), Madison said:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people….[emphasis added]

Madison said it again in Federalist No. 39 (3rd para from end):

…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects….” [emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 14 (8th para), Madison said:

… the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects…[emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 27 (last para), Hamilton said:

…It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…[caps in original]

Again, not my words, but I agree with them. I don't claim to know everything about the subject, I don't need to. I do however, have a pretty good understanding of the intent of things though.

I am glad that Norcalrider (Mik) has joined the discussion, I believe his opinion and knowledge will lead to the improvement and addition to all of ours.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-26-2012, 11:45 AM Reply   
Look I totally understand the desire to examine Constitutional intent but times have drastically changed and revisions were and are necessary. You can't justify the terms like importation of persons, other persons, and person held to service or labor in the Constitution. It is far from a perfect document and was intended to be a working document. I would agree that Federalism has gone too far and that many rights should be returned to the citizens and states but I do not believe a document written at that point in history should be the only governing document at the Federal level.
Old    SamIngram            01-26-2012, 12:18 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Look I totally understand the desire to examine Constitutional intent but times have drastically changed and revisions were and are necessary. You can't justify the terms like importation of persons, other persons, and person held to service or labor in the Constitution. It is far from a perfect document and was intended to be a working document. I would agree that Federalism has gone too far and that many rights should be returned to the citizens and states but I do not believe a document written at that point in history should be the only governing document at the Federal level.
This is why an amendment process was included, however, based on what has been done and your position, the Constitution doesn't matter. The Federal Government can do whatever they decide.

This is one of my favorite blog posts on the subject.
Old    SamIngram            01-26-2012, 3:58 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Look I totally understand the desire to examine Constitutional intent but times have drastically changed and revisions were and are necessary. You can't justify the terms like importation of persons, other persons, and person held to service or labor in the Constitution. It is far from a perfect document and was intended to be a working document. I would agree that Federalism has gone too far and that many rights should be returned to the citizens and states but I do not believe a document written at that point in history should be the only governing document at the Federal level.
Mik,

1. Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1: At the time our Constitution was drafted and ratified, slavery was universal. Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 1 was OUR announcement to the world that WE WERE GOING TO ABOLISH THE SLAVE TRADE IN 20 YEARS. That was an amazing pronouncement in a world where slavery was universal. James Madison wanted to abolish the slave trade immediately, but he didn’t have the votes to abolish it immediately. See Federalist Paper No. 42 (6th & 7th paras).

But WE set the example for the World to follow. It was shortly after our Constitution was ratified that England abolished the slave trade and then slavery, and other countries followed. The first part of the 19th century was a great one for liberation of slaves throughout the Christian World.

2. Art. V sets forth the procedures for Amending The Constitution. Pursuant to Art. V, the Constitution was amended to prohibit slavery (13th Amendment), to extend to the freed slaves basic civil rights (14th Amendment), and to extend to them the right to vote (15th Amendment).

The purpose of Art. V is to amend what needs to be amended. With slavery, the Constitution worked – We amended the Constitution to fix the problem. True, it took 100 years for black people to gain equal rights, but that is due to the wickedness and evil which reside in the hearts of men [and the Democrat party which dominated the segregated south for 100 years] – not to defects in Our Constitution.

3. The Constitution created a federal government with limited & enumerated powers.
a) DO PRINCIPLES OF LIMITED CIVIL GOVERNMENT GO “OUT OF STYLE”? If so, what are these Principles of limited civil government replaced with?

b) Is the concept of “Rule of Law” – the concept that people in the federal government must obey the Constitution – old fashioned?

4. Federalism is a wonderful thing indeed! It has to do with the form of our constitutional republic: An alliance of Sovereign States associated together in a “federation” with a national government to which is delegated authority over the States in specifically defined and enumerated areas only.

5. What document(s) in addition to the U.S. Constitution do you think should govern the federal government? Do you recognize any limit on what people in the federal government may do? What are the limits if not Our Constitution?

Again, not my words...

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:01 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us