Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Mike, May 8, 2012.
Tenth Amendment Center: If the Feds Won’t Stop the TSA, the States Should
I hate to be that black cloud raining on people's parades, but ......
In order to permanently get rid of the TSA, the federal statute that created them will need to be modified (either by Congress or the courts) or repealed. The states can pass all the laws they want, but if there are sections in those state laws that are in conflict with the federal statute that created the TSA, they're going down. That's how the Supremacy Clause works.
They will be in state jails. Let the tug of war commence...
No, they probably won't. If there is an actual fight between the states and the feds, any screeners caught in the middle will probably be released on bail.
Honestly, I think our best bet is to force Congress to deal with the TSA.
I wish we could take all the good energy of the 10th Amendment people and get them to focus on cutting off the TSA at the root - repealing the federal statute. I want them gone, just like I want REAL ID gone, but the only way to make sure that they are not only merely dead, but really, most sincerely dead, is to kill that federal statute.
That's precisely what all five panelists said at that ACLU/UDC panel I attended last year. To a man, from all over the ideological spectrum, they said don't look to the courts to solve this; this requires a political solution. And by that they meant not just Congress, but ordinary people standing up and saying they won't take this (expletive deleted) anymore.
It's really the only sure-fire way.
I have no doubt that we could do it if we're able to muster enough interest. And that's always the sticking point - people not wanting to get involved, or hoping that somebody else will do it for them.
We're starting to get there 'one grope at a time'.
Not flying will bring change faster than any other method.
You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride...
Sunny's absolutely right, but the resulting ruckus will do nothing to help TSA's already blemished image. There's always going to be an off-chance the judge who's asked to remove a case to federal court just had his wife felt up or his own jewels juggled. At some point, somewhere, the façade will crack. People need to fight this in every way possible.
And they'll need to keep on riding after they're released with a set of tungsten drill bits in their knees...
This is one of umpteen places where the Feds have abandoned the constitution. If by some miracle you change this one, think you're gonna change the rest? I don't. Too many vested interests and powerful state contingents content to suck the federal teats. The 10th ers and the states rights people think that what YOU say cannot be done, that Washington is totally corrupt and beyond all fixing. I think they're right. The only thing that will right this ship is what in fact is happening: Washington imploding because it has no money and no currency, and a number of states asserting their powers once more. The time is coming when no one gives a rat's *ss what comes out of Washington.
Hey, we need all that surveillance, don't you know?
It's possible that we might win something on the TSA, but only because they are so over-the-top corrupt and offensive. No one except criminals want to molest and steal from people for a living.
With REAL ID - the main reason it hasn't been implemented is because it's SO expensive. Most of the states don't have the money to deal with it. A side issue is that it will generate more bad press when people realize they can't go to the DMV and get their license in a couple of hours. It may take multiple trips and much gathering of documents before you'll be able to renew your license. And did I mention the expense? It's a total media nightmare. The other 'vested interests and powerful state contingents' tend not to have these problems, so yeah, I think you're right on that.
I think Washington is corrupt too. But -- that doesn't mean the feds or the Supreme Court is going to allow the states to usurp the feds' power.
That may be, but it's a separate issue. Occupy, anyone?
Manual IO or EZ IO? Or forget the whole thing and use a O2 bottle.
What the federal system has done with a vengeance in the last 100 years is a usurpation in spades.
It is not usurpation to say to the federal government, either honor the contract (the US constitution) by which we joined the union of states, or let us go. SCOTUS represents one party (the feds) in a two-party agreement, with the other party being the state or states. So SCOTUS cannot unilaterally dictate to the states when it comes to a fundamental disagreement over the contract any more than any second party can dictate to the first party in a two-party agreement. It is not a disinterested impartial arbitrater.
The federal system can hold the states at gunpoint, which is what happened in 1861. It can let states leave. Or, the more likely scenario, with faith in federal leadership vanishing, with money completely gone, and discredited by being forced to renege on all the stupid promises it made, the federal level will cut deals with the states and be forced to limit its reach. "Federal" will become an epithet.
As Lisa Simeone has pointed out, the purpose of a system is what it does. What does Washington do? Washington rewards rent seekers at the expense of everyone else and seeks to direct our every move and know everything about us, financial or otherwise. Its purpose is what you see it doing. Its purpose will always be that. Seeking to elect "purer" crooks to right this is a fools errand. You cannot fix something whose essence is to direct, control, crush, and oppress.
Credit where credit is due, it was Sommer Gentry who wrote the TSA News post about "the purpose of a system is what it does."
Here I reiterate my story of watching a little old man leave a NJ DMV office in tears because he was told he had to produce his confirmation certificate from a church in Italy in order to prove he was who he said he was. He had no idea of the name of the church, no way to obtain the certificate. Simply awful.
Separate names with a comma.