Please realize that at our state capitol, there are metal detectors at the entrances. All must pass through them, except certain individuals – those with concealed carry permits. Yep. This is the thinking of the Republicans in Texas. You get a free pass if you carry a gun. If you don’t, you aren’t trusted.

There is also a bill to allow guns on college campuses. Needless to say, college administrators are very unhappy about it. It will pass, and it will be signed into law.

Near as I can tell, if a lot of Texas legislators had their way, there wouldn’t be any x-rays or metal detectors or anything of the sort at airports. We’d all have guns and would police the skies ourselves as citizen protectors.

Irony persists in the face of constant assinity

I tend to think the person that keeps consenting to these searches, all the while whining on the internet on how unlawful and unconstitutional they are or something to that effect, should look in the mirror when using the word stupid. Or, your just spoiled like I said in my statement you quoted.

My rights are not violated. You give yours away willingly. “Stupid is as stupid does”. Yep, I’m watching Forest Gump.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;”

So, yes, the commerce clause allows the government to apply some degree of regulation to interstate (or foreign) commerce. And the part where they argue, “the Texas legislature stands on solid ground… airport operation falls under state jurisdiction” may not work.

However, to use the commerce clause to violate provisions in the Bill of Rights is beyond the scope of the clause (or at least, the framer’s intentions, maybe not our current courts).

Our inalienable rights are NOT commerce. They can not be regulated by this clause.

“The meaning of the word “commerce” is a source of much of the controversy. The Constitution does not explicitly define the word. Some argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that the founders intended to describe more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. Thus, the interpretation of “commerce” affects the appropriate dividing line between federal and state power.”

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Commerce_Clause

Can you explain how these otherwise unconstitutional strip searches are either “trade or exchange” or “commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states”? It seems to me, that the searches are far outside the scope of the “commerce”. And that if Congress wants the actions of the TSA to be legal, they’ll have to argue for a national security exception to the Constitution rather than merely invoke the commerce clause.

Because in this case, the government is not merely regulating the commerce of airlines (ticket prices, fees, expenditures etc…) It is requiring all airlines to allow the federal government to violate the civil rights of their passengers without exception.

I would argue that this is a gross perversion of the commerce clause that is tantamount to a police state because it is capable of subverting any or all of our right/liberties. If you make the word “commerce” untenably vague then there is no clear limit to it’s application.

For example, would you argue that the Congress can censor anything on the internet that has some (however minuscule) effect on commerce?

Would you argue that Homeland Security has the authority to do strip searches without a warrant or probable cause on anyone crossing into another state on a Greyhound bus or if they are a commercial trucker?

Would you argue that to protect a newspaper in one state, Congress can censor a newspaper in another, if they compete in the same market?

If I cross a state line in my own privately owned car, but I’m traveling on a business trip, do I still have inalienable rights?

Can Congress define non-commercial sexual intercourse between citizens of different states as “social intercourse between citizens of different states” and thus regulate it? Do you see how absurd this can get?

It seems that by your logic, in the name of interstate “commerce”, once I buy an airline ticket I could potentially give up ALL my civil rights/liberties. I could lose the right to speech, to due process, equal treatment under the law – just as easily as we’ve lost the right not to be strip searched without a warrant or probable cause. Is there anything in your interpretation of the commerce clause to prevent this? Where are the limits of it’s application?

They also say that they consider all governments to be “socialist” (and in their book, that’s definitely a very bad thing).

Every person that boarded a public flight in 2010 consented to a search. Those that did not consent, did not fly.

I have not heard of one instance of a person in the US that refused a search, was not permited to fly, that filed a suit for the restriction.

The proposed Texas law, or simular laws, will not have teeth. No one needs probable cause for a search if they have consent.

My point is, as long as people continue to give consent to search in order to fly or enter a government building, nothing will change. While some feel it’s fine for their safety, many do not. 99.9% that do not will give consent anyway or find an alternate route. This will change nothing.

I would love to go to the courthouse with speeding ticket in hand for hearing, refuse search and sue for not being allowed due process. Same goes for flying. I am a lowly disabled vet, low income, no law degree. I do not have the means to do so. Those that do, complain but consent and keep their money and do not bother with the intrusion fighting such things bring into their lives. In short, nothing will change. Consent will be given.

I know what abortion law just got passed here under “emergency” considerations by Slick Rick Perry..

And this? Pshaw.

Not a problem, really. Texans get to stay in Texas and practice their very special brand of self-inflicted isolationism.

I can live with that.

Pigs are flying somewhere.

As much as I’m for the a stand down from totalitarian-style security theater, I can’t say I’m impressed by the “Tenth Amendment Center’s” confidence.

Can’t wait for this show to start!

That… that sounds really nice.

The question for me is should I support this impotent grand standing or not? It brings up an issue I care about, but it also seems like a stupid bill by stupid people. Sigh…

Bumper v. North Carolina (1968) – “When a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given. This burden cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority.”

Florida v. Royer (1983) – “[I]t is unquestioned that without a warrant to search [an airline passenger's] luggage and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances, the validity of the search depended on [the passenger's] purported consent. Neither is it disputed that where the validity of a search rests on consent, the State has the burden of proving that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given, a burden that is not satisfied by showing a mere submission to a claim of lawful authority.”