TSA Invokes Constitution When Convenient
May 15, 2011 Political
The great State of Texas has passed a law that makes it illegal for security screeners to touch people on certain parts of their bodies. This is in response to the invasion of privacy that takes place when TSA officers conduct enhanced pat downs of air travelers. The TSA has struck back in a posting at the TSA blog that lists its response to Texas as; you can’t do that because the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says states can’t regulate the federal government.
That is very true but only in cases where the actions of the federal government are allowed by the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government is responsible for the traveling public. Let us assume though, that the federal government would be allowed to regulate our travel under the Commerce Clause (it is stretched for so many things that this is not out of the question). That still would not allow the federal government to claim supremacy when the act involves the violation of our Constitutional rights. The actions by the TSA are a violation of our Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure without probable cause and without a warrant.
No matter how supreme the federal government is, it cannot invoke supremacy on issues where it is violating the Constitution or where it has no Constitutional authority in the matter. The Tenth Amendment gives the states or the people the supremacy over any item NOT listed in the Constitution.
If the TSA wants to drag out the dusty, seldom used copy of the Constitution that the agency has then it must be willing to accept the limits placed on the federal government by that very document. The federal government has no enumerated power to search people as the TSA agents are doing. NONE, period.
It is obvious that the TSA thinks it, as part of the federal government, has supremacy in this issue but the reality is Texas has exerted its Tenth Amendment right to supremacy over an issue not Constitutionally enumerated to the federal government.
Let us also not forget that Texas did not pass a law that interferes with airline travel so even if one can claim supremacy under Commerce, the law in question does not involve that. The Texas law simply says that if a screener touches certain areas of people’s bodies without probable cause or a warrant then they have committed a crime.
Setting off an alarm in the metal detector is not probable cause to touch people in areas that would have one arrested if done on the street. Being a baby or a child is not probable cause to molest a child in hopes of finding a bomb. Refusing to go through the X-Ray machine is no more probable cause for an invasive search than is refusing to allow a police officer to search your vehicle during a traffic stop. If police officers started pulling people who refused searches out of their cars and subjected them to the pat down performed by the TSA then every civil rights group would be up in arms and the people would be rebelling against such invasion. However, the TSA does the same thing and then has the nerve to claim it can do so and has supremacy over the states that try to stop it.
I am not sure the TSA wants to open the can of worms involved in citing the Constitution to rebuke a state because that would lead to closer scrutiny involving the Constitutionality of what the TSA is doing, the role of the federal government in the process and the violation of our Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights.
For those who say it is moot because we do not have a right to travel, the federal government has codified travel as a right that will not be impeded (if one agrees that government can regulate travel under Commerce then this law has to be allowed as part of that regulation).
TSA impedes us unnecessarily in the name of security. Remember folks, no terrorist has been caught by the TSA and the TSA routinely fails screening tests where “harmful” items are sneaked through security.
Not to worry though, the TSA does ensure our genitals are in place prior to boarding a plane…
Where our genitals are is not the issue here. The issue is where the TSA is keeping its collective heads…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, fourth amendment, lies, supremacy, tenth amendment, texas, tsa
Is There Anything Obama Will Not Lie About?
Apr 19, 2011 Political
We know that Barack Obama is a liar. It is obvious when he opens his mouth that he is not telling the truth and anyone with a brain can see it (which excludes liberals). Obama has already been caught doing the flip flop with regard to the debt limit. Back in 2006 he said that the president (G W Bush) and Republicans looking to raise the debt ceiling demonstrated a lack of leadership and that we had a debt problem. I agreed with his words from then. Now he has his mouthpiece say that he was in error to vote against raising the debt limit and only did it out of spite because he opposed Bush’s policies. That does not negate the fact that he said it demonstrated a lack of leadership and now that he is asking for the debt limit to be raised, he is the one lacking in leadership qualities (though to be fair, he never possessed any to begin with).
Now we have Obama, in his own words, from 2008 with regard to presidential signing statements. Obama said that this was not part of the president’s power and reinforced that by telling people he taught Constitutional law for 10 years. God help us because he, no doubt, taight his interpretation rather than that of the people who wrote it. In any event, here is Obama from 2008:
That’s not part of his power, but this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he goes along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress. Real Clear Politics
One could argue that Obama is now using signing statements, not to do an end run around Congress, but to make his point clear. That would be a BS argument but I know many liberals will make it. Obama makes it clear from the outset that IT IS NOT PART OF HIS POWER. That means that any signing statements are not part of the president’s power. Whether they are or not is irrelevant because Obama said they were not and based it on his teaching the Constitution so he said what he meant and what he wanted people to believe was true.
Now it is a little different. Obama used a signing statement on the recently passed budget compromise in which his czars were eliminated. Obama issued a signing statement that he was not going to follow that part of the deal.
He used a signing statement to do an end run around Congress. There is no other way to look at it. He did exactly what he said he would not do. That makes him a liar. Obama lied, got it liberals, your messiah lied to you. How many of you will call him on this? My guess is that most will defend him. The rationale will be something like, well Bush was wrong when he did it but Obama is right.
In fact, his mouthpiece (Jay Carney) said just that and he too lied along the way:
His concern was with what he saw as an abuse of the signing statement by the previous administration. So that the positions he took in signing statements on the budget bill entirely consistent with that position, you need to retain the right to, as president, to be able to issue those signing statements, but obviously they should not be abused. Real Clear Politics
Compare the two statements and you can see the glaring lies. Obama never said he opposed the abuse of signing statements. He said that the president did not have the power to use them and that he knows it because he taught the Constitution. He said he would not use them to do an end run around Congress but Carney is saying that Obama was never opposed to them and that using them is consistent with his previous position (the false premise Carney began with). This is all a lie and it is all recorded and presented in their own words.
Obama is a liar though his change of position on this issue might be consistent with him being a teacher of the Constitution. You see, liberals believe the Constitution is a living document that can be molded and adapted to meet any condition (see FDR). This is utterly false and the Founders never meant for it to be that way but to Obama and liberal/progressive schmucks like him, the Constitution is a barrier to what they want to do to this country. It gets in their way so they need to keep changing it to suit their needs.
It suited his purpose to say that Bush had no authority to use signing statements when he was trying to take Bush’s place but now that he is in the position it suits his purpose to use the very instrument he derided as unconstitutional.
He is a liar and we need to keep beating him with his own words.
And Republicans need to stop making deals and lay down the law. Stop funding everything until we get the budget under control and tell Obama to stuff it. I would also recommend that any bills submitted by Congress include language that says the use of signing statements is not allowed on the bill.
Hamstring this Socialist and keep him from doing any more harm to this country.
Wake up America. This man and his people are telling you lies because they think you are too stupid to notice or to care. I might agree there are a lot of stupid people because Obama was elected but even dumb animals learn from their mistakes.
Any of you liberal/progressive Obamabots want to defend this? I know there will be someone who does.
Hmm, another war in the Middle East, extension of the tax cuts, excessive spending, signing statements, and asking that the debt limit be raised. They told me if I voted for McCain I would get Bush’s third term.
Looks like they were right.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Bush, carney, constitution, law professor, liar, Obama, signing statements, socialist
Free Speech Gets Travelers More Scrutiny
Apr 17, 2011 Political
Be wary air passengers, the TSA is on the lookout for those of you who voice your disgust at the methods they employ in the name of safety. Part of their profiling system includes looking for passengers who are “[V]ery arrogant and expresses contempt against airport passenger procedures.” In other words, if you express your opinion they get to decide if it is arrogant and full of contempt and then they can subject you to more invasive screening. Since these are arbitrary it is solely up to TSA to decide.
One civil rights group explains it as such:
“Expressing your contempt about airport procedures — that’s a First Amendment-protected right,” said Michael German, a former FBI agent who now works as legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “We all have the right to express our views, and particularly in a situation where the government is demanding the ability to search you.”
“It’s circular reasoning where, you know, I’m going to ask someone to surrender their rights; if they refuse, that’s evidence that I need to take their rights away from them. And it’s simply inappropriate,” he said. CNN
There is, of course, a difference between being unruly or disorderly and expressing dissatisfaction with how things are done. The TSA however, gets to decide on the matter and will use more in depth screening as a punishment (rather than a security tool) should a traveler decide to express an opinion about how the TSA is doing its job.
This is another attempt to silence the traveling public and get it to accept what is being done without uttering a peep. It is an effort to gain more acceptance of the loss of rights.
The Fourth Amendment is violated and now the First Amendment joins an ever growing list of individual rights that are being eroded by the government.
And if you don’t like it, armed people will surround you and force you to submit.
Just as my friend Ogre always points out.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, government tyranny, lies, rights, tsa
Why Didn’t Obama Consult With Congress?
Mar 20, 2011 Political
Barack Obama committed the United States to aggressive action against Libya and our military has launched hundreds of missiles against that country. Most Democrats are publicly supporting Mr. Obama even though these very Democrats were quite vocal in their opposition to George Bush involving us in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The big difference is that George Bush requested and received approval from Congress for the use of military force. Barack Obama did no such thing. Some Democrats believe he ignored his responsibilities when he acted unilaterally and without consulting Congress.
These Democrats are not happy with Mr. Obama and the word impeachment has been thrown around:
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.
Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses. Politico
While some of these Democrats are upset at the use of force it would appear as if they are equally or more upset that Obama did not consult Congress. They have a valid point and one can only imagine what would have happened had Bush gone into Iraq or Afghanistan without getting the approval of Congress. We would have had Democrats becoming apoplectic over the whole issue and Bush would likely have been impeached.
As it is, Bush was hammered by the left and he received the approval of Congress for the use of military force. Even though he received that approval many wanted to impeach him for using force. Some Democrats appear to want the same but I highly doubt they will be successful.
Obama has too many supporters on the left who will ensure that all is well. He will be protected by the very people who railed against Bush.
The big question that has not been answered is why didn’t Obama discuss this with Congress? I believe that Mr. Obama feels that he in encumbered by Congress (as our Founders intended) and that he would simply rather do things in a way that bypass Congress. This is a pattern we have seen with him as he and his regime look for ways to accomplish an agenda without involving Congress.
He thinks the Constitution is too limiting so he works to avoid doing things in accordance with it.
Obama was worried about having Congress say no to his use of force (he does not have a majority in the House and any Democrat defections would be bad) so he went ahead without involving that body,
Now he will have to face the music.
Or will he?
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, impeach, laws, libya, lies, Military, Obama
Obama’s Secret Stash
Mar 8, 2011 Political
After Barack Obama was elected there was some event where people were lined up to receive taxpayer money because of their dire economic situations. A woman who was interviewed said she was there for the money. When asked where the money was coming from she said Obama. Then when asked where he was getting it she said she did not know, maybe from his stash.
Typical welfare queen who thinks there is some stash of money that is available for those who “need” it.
Perhaps though, she was on to something. Obamacare seems to have Obama’s secret stash contained in it. The Heritage Foundation reports that Obamacare contains appropriations of $105 BILLION to implement the law. These appropriations were inserted to bypass the appropriations procedure and were designed to prevent a future Congress from defunding the program.
This was a blatant move to circumvent the Constitutional method for appropriating funds and nothing more. Democrats probably had a feeling that Obamacare would end their reign as the majority and did this to allow the unconstitutional law to proceed.
Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass the bill to see what was in it and that looks to be the case as we have now discovered an underhanded method to fund an unpopular and unconstitutional law.
Republicans can defund this but it will take extra work and diligence to get it right. The article at Heritage points out:
Conservatives can still save the nation from Obamacare’s bureaucratic kudzu, but they must act proactively. They must go beyond simply not providing funds for the implementation of Obamacare. CRS explains: “Precedents require that the language be phrased in the negative, for example, that ‘none of the funds provided in this paragraph (typically an account) shall be used for’ a specified activity.”
The Democrats leave messes and others have to clean them up. They are underhanded and sneaky and should never be trusted.
They made it difficult but not impossible to clean up the mess of Obamacare but the question is, why did they do it?
If it is so wonderful and everyone will love it then why did the Democrats in Congress do this?
They did it because they knew people opposed it and they wanted to ram it down our throats. In order to control the population they must control health care and they are well on their way. They are a third of the way to having everyone dependent on a government handout and if they can nail down health care they will have us all by the gonads.
We need to put an end to this now and we need to keep Democrats from ever having power.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, Democrats, funding, heritage foundation, illegal, lies, obamacare