Friday, May 27, 2011

Texas House of Representatives Seeking to Ban Current TSA Pat-Down

***Update: 5/27/2011 – Read this story in the Houston Chronicle for an update.***

What's our take on the Texas House of Representatives voting to ban the current TSA pat-down? Well, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2) prevents states from regulating the federal government.

We wish we lived in a world where you could just walk on a plane with no security screening, but that just isn't the case unfortunately.  Aviation security agencies worldwide have been using pat-downs long before TSA was created to prevent dangerous items from getting onto airplanes. The pat-down is a highly effective tool to resolve certain alarms and keep these dangerous items off of planes that could cause catastrophic damage.  It's important to note that if a passenger (or bag) alarms during screening, our officers must resolve the alarm before allowing the passenger and their baggage on the airplane.

Here are some pat-down myths and facts:

Myth: Everyone who travels will receive a pat-down.

Fact: In fact, less than 3% of passengers receive pat-downs. Only passengers who alarm a walk through metal detector or AIT machine or opt out of the AIT receive a pat-down. In addition, some passengers may also receive a pat-down as part of our random, unpredictable security measures.  In his testimony to a Senate subcommittee, Administrator Pistole said: "The bottom line is few people in the overall scheme of things will actually receive those pat downs. Now, we've heard some examples, and obviously, there's a vocal group out there who have experienced this for the first time, and, rightfully so, raising concerns, what's behind this. And the bottom line is we, the transportation security officers in particular, are trying to work in partnership with the traveling public to say we want to ensure that you are safe on this flight. Work with us in a partnership to provide the best possible security. And that's what it comes down to."

Myth: All children will receive pat-downs.

Fact: No. TSA officers are trained to work with parents to ensure a respectful screening process for the entire family, while providing the best possible security for all travelers. Children 12 years old and under who require extra screening will receive a modified pat down. 

Myth: Complaints about the pat-downs are extremely high.

Fact: Only a small percentage of the traveling public receives a pat down as they travel through the security checkpoint.  Between November 2010 and March 2011, TSA screened nearly 252 million people. In that same time period, we received 898 complaints from individuals who have experienced or witnessed a pat down. That's roughly 0.0004%.

Myth: Pat downs for certain individuals are limited to the head and neck.

Fact: No one is exempt. Everyone is subject to the same screening. TSA is sensitive to religious and cultural needs, but everyone must be screened effectively.

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team 

If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or search our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.

1,032 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   801 – 1000 of 1032   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Where did you get your degree in constitutional law, Bob? If you TSA-ites want to pretend to be following the Constitution, then you should seek honest work in the private sector, because the Constitution simply does not allow for your presence on the federal dole.

Anonymous said...

Every TSA agent should be forced to stand at the busiest intersection of his town, with a copy of the Constitution around his neck, holding a sign that says "TRAITOR."

Anonymous said...

Go Texas!!!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said at May 20, 2011 10:09 PM
"Air travel is not a constitutional right."
Correct!! The Constitution does not grant rights. The government and its servants are to protect our rights and travel is one of the many God-given rights.

"You have given "implied consent" when buying a airline ticket."

Ahem...consent must be given voluntarily, and with full disclosure.

"You have 'voluntarily' purchased a ticket from a private company."

Correct again. But there are invasions in the fulfillment of that contract, or the "Contract of Carriage."

Perhaps a look at the United States Code is in order.
Take a peek at 18 U.S.C. § 1951 Interference with commerce by threats or violence.
(2) The term ‘‘extortion’’ means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

Gawk at this from the United States Constitution Article I, section 10, clause 1.
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." (emphasis added)

Did you see that part about "impairing the Obligation of Contracts??"

So...when you purchase a ticket from an Airline, does it mention the TSA?? No, I thought so.

It is spiffy that the TSA folks have become Constitutionalists. After all, the should have oaths to protect our rights and uphold the Constitution.

They should have oaths. It might be good if Blogger Bob confirms this.

Thank you in advance B. Bob.

Mark said...

To all who say pat downs are illegal, do you really want to fly with someone who might be a terrorist? Or what if TSA went the other way, what if the alarm keeps going off and you can't figure out why? Then you probably aren't going to be allowed to board at all. And of course you are going to complain about that too. Quit whining, and get over it! If you want to know about government infringing on your rights go to some place like Iran.

SSSS for some reason said...

http://lewrockwell.com/adams-m/adams-m19.1.html

If TSA Agents really are Law Enforcement then why did they call Local Law Enforcement in the linked story?

Anonymous said...

Finally the people in Texas recognize that sticking hands into children's pants is not acceptable. Now for the rest of the country.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous says: "we all know x-rays are 100% safe because doctors use them in hospitals every day" Well in case you have'nt noticed, they step in another room, which has lead blankets in the walls for sheilding against the x-ray machine's harmful effects. If they don't have a separate room, then they go behind the lead curtain which is suspended by some sort of mobile framework.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The powers of the FEDERAL government are finite and CLEARLY DEFINED by the Constitution of the United States. The TSA and other agencies are violating American's constitutional rights on a daily basis with these unwarranted searches. Everyone should opt out of these NAKED BODY SCANNERS and refuse to allow the TSA to pat you down in innappropriate areas. The Texas bill does not 'ban patdowns' as the TSA would like to make you believe. It bans groping of the genitals, anus, and other sensitive areas. Even police in the field do not grope these areas when searching. Americans- stand up for your rights!

May 15, 2011 3:00 PM

----------------------

You have obviously never been through a pat down before. A sliding motion with the back of a hand is not a grope. Since before TSA you had to fufill screening requirments for the airline to let you on their plane, your rights weren't getting taken away back then either? The pat down of sensitive areas TSA uses are the same ones airline employees used back in the hand wanding days but it wasn't a problem back then? I remember getting screened pre-tsa and if my zipper alarmed the hand wand they would do the same sliding motion with the back of the hands back then as they do now with their new pat downs. In fact after going through the new pat down the only thing ive seen different between the old one and this one is how they pat down my leg but they are still sliding past my sensitive areas with the back of their hands. So why is it now its a problem when it wasn't a problem back then? The anti government crazies and media are just picking on the new kids on the block is all, TSA is just the newest organization so they are going to be picked on the most. Those states can try but 1 of 2 things will happen. it passes and the airline will refuse to let you on the plane if you set of the wtmd since you can't get patted down or it doesn't pass because STATES CANT OVER RULE FEDERAL LAW.

Anonymous said...

"A sliding motion with the back of a hand is not a grope."

Definition of grope: "Verb: Feel about or search with the hands."

If the TSA lays their hands on us for a 'resolution' whatever, it is a grope.

f2000 said...

I'd like to see the TSA offer a site where you can register your opposition. Then later, when the government starts getting sued by all the irradiated and sickly TSA agents, those people will be excused from having to pay for the settlements/medical bills.

Like an official "We told you so"

SciMjr2 said...

I'm not against screening or trying to catch terrorists but I AM against invasive searches! Trying to protect the public should not give absolute power to that agency so they can abuse people and their power ... it doesn't give them the right to intimidate or try to intimidate good, honest citizens!

The T.S.A. could avoid 99% of the push back and outrage if they would knock off the security theater i.e. groping and Rape-I-Scan machines. PROFILE PEOPLE! WATCH PEOPLE & MONITOR BEHAVIOR! Israel has proven that those techniques DO work!

RB said...

Bob, when will you correct or amend the headline for this article correcting your blatant lie about the Texas Bill?

It's ok to tell the truth, really!

Anonymous said...

Who are the real terrorists? is it we the people? or is it those who use fear and force to sexually assault the elderly and children?

The TSA has committed outrageous criminal acts of molestation. Texas has every right to arrest TSA officers who break the law. And that is exactly what TSA does everyday. TSA is not above the law.

It is ironic that an agency that violates the constitution everyday would try to justify their criminal actions by citing the constitution. It has already been pointed out by others that the Supremacy clause does not give the Federal government unlimited and unchecked power over the states. As Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both wrote in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves, the states have the right and Duty to nullify unconstitutional overreaches by the Federal government. I suppose the TSA is also completely ignorant of the tenth amendment as well. Since the Constitution outlines an exhaustive list of powers enumerated to the Feds...show me where in the Constitution does it give the Feds the authority to regulate airline safety?

Besides, we have a list of creator endowed rights that are inalienable...as in can't be relinquished or taken away by anyone. These are the Bill of Rights and of them is the 4th amendment. TSA knows well that this law protects Americans from illegal searches. Searches must have probable cause and a warrant. Those are the standards.

The TSA is no more than a modern day Gestapo police force. A Hitlerian goon squad hiding behind the guise of security and protecting us from "terrorists". But as we all know the real terrorists are the TSA and Federal Government who by their actions fit the very definition of the word Terrorist as defined by United States Law.

If the TSA thinks they can continue to molest American children and grandmas in wheelchairs...they got anther thing coming. The people will not tolerate this for much longer. The TSA and DHS labels us who oppose the them as "potential domestic extremists"....how cute. Perhaps it is the other way around. Perhaps the people are getting fed up with the domestic terrorists that are the TSA and DHS.

You want to act tough and put my name on some stupid list??? Go ahead, but guess what, I got the TSA and entire DHS on my list of terrorist organizations. We the people will rout you out of our government.

You know I am sure that King George III would have loved to label all the colonist as terrorists and secretly arrest them all and avoid the revolutionary war...oh wait he tried that..didnt work out so well for him. Authoritarian government that invade the liberties and privacy of their people never learn...they always repeat the same tactics to attempt to gain control. This of course will fail once the people finally say enough is enough. I for one dare any TSA agent to lay a finger on my daughter....see what happens. I don't care what you threaten us with, for when the government becomes destructive to the liberties of the people it becomes the right and duty of the people to throw off that government and replace it. Keep pushing and threatening...and you will get a second American Revolution...and thats not just my opinion..but the sentiment of millions around the country.

Think I am exaggerating..keep pushing and find out.

As for Texas..good for them in initiating this. I am bemused that they backed down. TSA and their threats won't work on everyone.

darris said...

And where does it say federal agents are allowed to do searches in airports?
You have a ridiculous interpretation of the supremacy clause.
State nullification is what protected the rights of fugitive slaves, or are you saying that the federal government should have stormed in and sent all the slaves back according to the federal "Fugitive Slaves Act"?
TSA, you are the product of fear mongering and lies. You spread them like a cancer.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Texas backed down hard. TSA threatened to shut down the airports. Which would never happen. But nevertheless TSA 1 - Texas 0

Anonymous said...

Mark said...
To all who say pat downs are illegal, do you really want to fly with someone who might be a terrorist?

Terrorists aren't required to only attack airplanes. Airport screening is like wearing a bullet proof vest that only covers one square inch of your chest. Even if we could keep all terrorists of airplanes (which doesn't actually work anyway) it wouldn't make you any safer.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the Texas law enforcement should do a grope down on TSA officers before they can start their shift!

Michael said...

Myth: The TSA has prevented attacks on airliners in the United States.

FACT: They can't point to one instance where the reinforced cockpit door or the actual passengers themselves on the plane averted an attack. Not in 10 years of wasted money (huge amounts of money), tremendous infringements on our liberties, not to mention the holier than thou attitude presented by the TSA staff themselves (including you bloggers - particulary you Blogger Bob). You aren't keeping us safe. You've stolen our freedoms and we will never ever stop resisting you.

Anonymous said...

Well, out of 252,000,000 (million) people only 0.0004% complained?

Nice manipulation of statistics; but don't you mean that 280,623 people actually complained?

TSA please do a better job and keep the bias out of the statistics. Neither the total was based as a percentage and TSA's inclusion of a % (percentage) as an answer is bias.

It's not 0.0004%; but actually 280,623 thousand people.

Get it right TSA - stop the bias.

RB said...

Maybe the Texas law enforcement should do a grope down on TSA officers before they can start their shift!

May 25, 2011 10:32 AM

.............
Sexual assualt is already illegal so local cops could arrest a TSA employee for a pat down if a complaint is filed by a traveler.

Anonymous said...

You silly Texas serfs. How dare you tell your bureaucratic betters they can't grope the crotch of you and your child. There could a terrorist hiding in your child's underwear.

Anonymous said...

Gutless Texas representatives show their lack of courage and back down from the TSA. Typical

Anonymous said...

TSA administrator Pistol must be fired immediately. he is an embarrassment to the agency and to the country. bully state at its worst. i thought we live in the land of the free.

Jilly said...

Um, no.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations to Texas for trying to stand up and protect your citizens rights. I would love to see more and more people driving to their destinations and basically standing against using the airlines. If the airlines are not getting much business, something will change.

TSA is a joke. Most everything they tell is a joke. It's just government lies as always and believe me I work for the government and we are required to lie constantly to the public.

"Its all about public safety" has gotten really old and WAY over used and means nothing. This is not just the TSA on this one!

Anonymous said...

252 million screened...

898 complaints ("only)...

Ok, Cool! Ummm, but...

How many "Bad Guys" caught?

And how much money is this costing us?

And could this money be better spent on... Nah, never mind. It doesn't matter because some one is getting real rich off this stuff.

Anonymous said...

This is absolutely ridiculious! The fascist "TSA" and their policies are completly illegal under THE CONSTUTION, the supreme law of the land. This republic needs to be rid of its current tyrannical government and follow THE CONSTUTION. Its very simple, we have rights and they should be protected. The terroists hate us for our rights? What rights? They are slowly eroding away our freedoms but more and more people are waking up and realizing this, god willing the people of this FREE nation will stand up to the elite peacefully before its too late.... for when that happens the tree of libery will be refreshed with the blood of the undercover TYRANTS working behind the scenes to destroy the greatest nation on Mother Earth. To the NWOElite: the world is your but it can be mine and his, liberty will reign once again.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, I cannot view your response to Texas' legislative action as anything other than a threat. You continue to cite the Supremacy clause but continue to ignore the Fourth Amendment. The Supremacy Clause would apply if your actions were constitutional.
TSA employees, please do not assume that your positions will afford you any protection from the same infringement of rights that we citizens suffer, as oppressive governments also eat their own.

carl said...

TSA should be disbanded. I do not believe that these patdowns and naked body scans are making us any safer. And even if they were, I am not willing to have my rights infringed upon to be safer. I would rather stay free and live with the risks that come along with freedom.

Jonathan B. said...

COWARDS. your going to remove TSA and shut down airports if this goes through? Then your nothing but a bunch of rapists in my book, using coersion to further your utopian 1 world agenda. Good luck with that because real texans will stand up against you.

addictive said...

I'm in the United states Army Reserve stationed in Meadville PA.

I was recently at WLC in Omaha and refused to go through the invasive screening process, I was then told I MUST go through a pat-down, yes I was in ACU's with matching orders\ID\dog tags.

The TSA is a joke, next time I am on orders I'm bringing a copy of the 4th amendment with me and refusing any pat-down, lets see how big a stink a US soldier can raise over this obvious breach of the constitution.

Anonymous said...

I'm a 72 years old native Texas who has also lived in Colo. and Calif. for a few years and have traveled to about 50 foreign countries. It distresses me to see people in the check out counters at grocery stores pay for their food with food stapes, the Lone Star card, then pay for all the items illegal to buy with the LSC with cash, items they should not be buying like several cartons of soft drinks, chips, dips, etc. Our country thanks to the federal govt. has gone to hell; we are headed toward bankruptcy. I'm all for Texas to leave the Union and become a financially responsible nation of God as we are now and let's take our oil with us.

wendell said...

It is quite disgusting to see The Constitution being being skimmed for loopholes, and phrases being taken out of context. It is doubly disgusting when it is done by those that despise every solitary word in the Constitution.

Since you seem to have a copy of that document, keep reading, there is also something called the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Steven PF said...

I was going to write a long comment in response to your egregious misunderstanding of the constitution which the blogger has so ignorantly broadcast on behalf of your pseudo governmental agency. I see that has already been thoroughly dealt with by numerous others, all of whom have a better understanding of the constitution than this blog post demonstrates. I will add one thought, however; the TSA has no authority. What they do currently have is power. They have the might and muscle of the government behind them, despite having no legitimacy. What is needed in every conversation on this topic is to disambiguate these terms, "authority" and "power." Similarly, though there is "legislation" which has created and empowered the TSA, it is not "law" - legislation which has been passed illegitimately and without regard to constitutional limits on government authority is not, and should never be called "law." Legislation without authority is institutionalized lawlessness, nothing more.

Anonymous said...

You jokers at the TSA wouldn't notice a tank being smuggled through a checkpoint, so let's quit these theatrics (which is all this is) and adopt the Israeli airport security model. Watch for suspicious behavior and question people instead of fondling babies and grannies.

Anonymous said...

I can't complain about the patdowns because since you started "security theater" (which is all it is), I've avoided flying as often as possible.

f2000 said...

"FACT: They can't point to one instance where the reinforced cockpit door or the actual passengers themselves on the plane averted an attack"

-----------

I have to disagree with you a bit on this one. There was a recent incident of a Yemeni-origin individual rushing the cockpit door and trying to bash it in while screaming Allahu Akhbar.

Of course, cockpit doors have no bearing on 4th amendment searches, molesting little girls or any other objectionable TSA initiative.

In fact, the passenger in question exhibited nearly every single red flag for a dangerous passenger, and still got past the TSA screening. He was tarveling alone with very little money on a one way ticket (plus a couple others I don't recall). And it was passengers that initially restrained the would-be-attacker.

For those that say "do you want to fly with terrorists?" this incident is proof positive that TSA isn't carrying out effective and properly focused screening. You may very well still be flying with terrorists, you'll just be certain that your aisle mates 6 year old girl isn't smuggling a nail clipper in her underpants.

If you find that comforting, I don't think you're stable enough to be making rational evaluations of other measures.

f2000 said...

I was in ACU's with matching orders\ID\dog tags.

--------------

The only time I plan to fly is when the Army tells me I have to. I look forward to that confrontation. It will be loud and involve several cameras.

Anonymous said...

BOB- how do you reconcile these statements:

"All that HB 1937 does is require that the TSA abide by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution," Simpson continued. "We aren't even prohibiting the pat-downs, per se. We're just saying you can't go straight to third base. You have to have a reason-you have to have probable cause-before groping someone's sexual organs."
-State Representative David Simpson

"HB 137 would conflict directly with federal law. The practical import of the bill is that it would threaten criminal prosecution of Transportation Security Administration personnel who carry out the security procedures required under federal statutes and TSA regulations passed to implement those statutes."
-U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy

????????????????

The TSA claims it doesn't touch people's genitals, then gets all upset because Texas passes a law that says they... can't touch peoples genitals.

Answer that, Bob.

tsaa said...

The Texas governments are cowards if they don't do it.

Anonymous said...

Ha, Supremacy Clause doesn't mean the Feds can sexually assault people. That's already illegal, and they can already be prosecuted under current law. I think we only need the AG to send over an interpretation document to TSA officials in TX regarding TX sexual assault and child decency laws so they know they're liable.

If we're talking Constitution then the TSA shouldn't exist in the first place. The Fed Gov has no authority under the Constitution to create such an agency.

The FEDS can't invoke the Supremacy Clause where it has no enumerated jurisdiction. The Supremacy Clause only applies to the limited powers granted it in the Constitution, not to everything it feels like it wants lay claim to. When it comes to the powers reserved to the PEOPLE and the STATES, these supercede FEDERAL law in all areas not specifically granted to the FED. Read the freakin' Constitution before you start spouting off about it.

If we're talking efficiency, then we get no return on our tax investment.

Any way you look at it these searches are bogus and counterproductive.

Anonymous said...

The "Supremacy Clause" only applies to laws of the federal government which are in accordance with the Constitution. Indeed, the Constitution is supreme over all laws, which is why it is mentioned first.

Secondly, the author of this post should consider reading the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, written by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson respectively, which speak directly to the subservience of the federal government to states' rights.

Lastly, these airports ought to hire out private security firms to take over in their airports - they would certainly do a more efficient and friendlier job than the TSA ever has.

Anonymous said...

I am appalled at the reasoning behind your arguments. I for one refuse to fly period, end of story while you violate the 4th Amendment so blatantly.

And only 3% get pat downs?

Well guess what, that's 3% too many.

You are an embarrassment to the country you claim to be protecting.

GO TEXAS!

Anonymous said...

Wow. Your actually trying to use the constitution to defend your actions? Amazing.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

f2000 says:
The only time I plan to fly is when the Army tells me I have to. I look forward to that confrontation.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
If I could be there, I'd look forward to the confrontation your company commander would have with you for disrepect.

When you are orders to your place of duty, and you fly commerical, you fly at a higher level of standy than other passengers on standby, and you must be in uniform for the airline to give you that courtesy.

While in uniform, you are not to make trouble. If you do, you could go on report to your company. So, if I were you, I'd chillax and just go with the program and get where you're going, then write to your congressman and senator. You can tell them to relax security for your so you can feel more comfy.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

The Department of Justice says that it will shut down airline travel in Texas if the state legislature passes a bill to limit the mission of TSA in Texas.

DOJ says that it could not, under the bill, ensure the safety of passengers, and, thus, it would be unsafe to let airlines operate.

After the threat, the Texas senate, realizing on which side their bread is buttered, failed to pass the bill.

Good. That's that.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

addictive says:
I'm in the United states Army Reserve...next time I am on orders I'm bringing a copy of the 4th amendment with me and refusing any pat-down, lets see how big a stink a US soldier can raise over this obvious breach of the constitution.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
If they say you must be patted down and you refuse, you won't fly. How 'bout that? If you make a stink, you'll be arrested. How 'bout that, too?

Take your copy of the Fourth Amendment, and be sure to listen when they tell you that there is no violation where there is what the law calls "implied consent" -- that is, when you choose to enter the checkpoint, then enter it. You may choose not to go through security; just turn around the go home. However, once you enter the secure area and you are stopped for a search, you may not go to the gate, nor may you go the other way, without being searched.

REMEMBER: You CHOSE to enter the checkpoint.

Anonymous said...

You guys are really pushing us further to the breaking point.

I refuse to fly anymore.

I chose to post anonymously. If no accountability is good enough for the gov, its good enough for me.

Anonymous said...

Mark,

You say:
To all who say pat downs are illegal, do you really want to fly with someone who might be a terrorist?

Of course no one wants that. I don't want to drive down the street with a drunk driver. I don't want to go a roller coaster that improperly maintained. But it happens no matter what we do bad stuff is gonna happen.

Anonymous said...

Bob, In your comment, you refer to "resolving alarms" as justfication for a patdown or nudiscope. I am a frequent flyer and on several occasions have been directed to submit to one or the other ( I won't go through the X-ray machines)as a matter of routine when I could just as easily, and more reasonably, been directed to the metal detectors.Which is it, resolving alarms (cause) or routine( no cause)? I don't really expect an answer, since you've never deigned to answer my previous questions.But keep in mind when commenting on this Blog, we can read and understand both what you say and what you omit to say- and we're not stupid.

Anonymous said...

Abolish the TSA and the Federal Reserve. Both departments are undermining our freedom and liberty!

Republicae said...

In order to come to a proper conclusion about Constitutional construction, one must understand the concept of restrictive qualification, for our system of government, both federal and those of the States, are guided by the principle of the restrictive qualification of powers committed to them respectively by the Constitution. As such, not only the governments, but within those governments, the various branches are, or should, be guided by the same principle, which essentially delegates authority within very specified spheres of action. Each may exercise the powers delegated to them, but neither can or should act upon the powers delegated to the other. The essential laws of delegation and representation denies the exertion of powers beyond the sphere of active delegation and representation, any attempts to cross those lines of delegated powers amounts to usurpation. Each of the branches of government, as well as the governments of the States, was established to preserve what each represents and to operate within those spheres of delegated authority. Thus each portion of government from the States to the federal government is to provide aggressive checks and balances on all other respective portions of government.

Republicae said...

It must be completely understood that under Article 6, the so-called supremacy clause, there is absolutely no additional powers conferred by that Article to the government in any respect than that which is already respectively enumerated. The declaration of supremacy did nothing more than confirm all the enumerated limitations on the powers delegated; it was not a license to extend any powers beyond that which was already enumerated. In other words, while some attempt to construct an almost unlimited degree of power to the federal government under the so-called supremacy clause, the fact is the clause only confirms the restrictive enumerated powers that were delegated to the government. The supremacy is not in the government formed by the enactment of the Constitution, but in the Constitution itself.

Republicae said...

Today, it is difficult to grasp the concept that the United States government has absolutely no authority but that, which is specifically provided to it by the Constitutional Compact. In order for any law to be the supreme law of the land it must, by definition, be in complete confirmation of the specific powers delegated within the Constitutional Compact, there can be no question of supremacy without a law meeting such confirmation. If any law does not meet with such qualifications then that law is void and null.

While there has been a tendency for the Supreme Court to operate as though it was indeed the sovereign determinant factor in all matters, the fact is that the Court is little more than a curator of the supremacy within the restrictive spheres of action and is bestowed no powers beyond any other governmental branch. It is however, evident that the Supreme Court has the ability to either impair or enforce the Constitution, but the proper role of the Court is far from that which it now assumes over this land. Thus the supremacy clause is nothing more than the affirmation of the Sovereignty of the People as it is characterized within the Constitutional Compact. Our system of governments, both State and federal, are completely embraced by the Constitutional powers that are delegated and reserved, the supremacy is bestowed coextensively and as such, that supremacy protects the powers delegated to the federal government equally as it protects those powers reserved by the States, otherwise there is no independent supremacy of either the federal or the State governments.

Each is co-dependent upon the other for the supremacy of operation within the very specific and limited spheres of action provided by the Constitution to those entities. There is no independent supremacy granted to any branch of government, otherwise there would have been no need for a Constitutional Compact delineating such powers. If the federal government, or any branch of the federal government had such supreme powers then the efficacy of a Constitutional Compact would have been instantly voided and would contain no practical effect on governing. Thus it is the supremacy of the Constitution, not a political branch of government that imposes limitations on each branch of government to very specific orbits of functionality, with one holding no more supremacy than any other branch within our system of governments. If such supremacy existed within one branch of government, or was extended to one branch then the entire concept of checks and balances would be an exercise in futility.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Anonymous says:
I refuse to fly anymore.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
See how easy a decision that is?

Republicae said...

The People of the Several States exercised their Right to alter or abolish both the governments of their respective States, as well as the federal government. If such power no longer rests within the People of the Several States, but in the federal government, then such construction must be considered completely erroneous not only with regard to the language of the Constitution, but to the very existence of the Constitution. If such were the case then there would be no need for the Constitution to exist at all. There is no branch within the federal government, which can, by its own volition, modify the terms of the Constitution, which governs its operation, and the sphere of its delegated power. There would have been no need to reserve any powers to the States if the States were to be subordinate to the supremacy federal government. It is the powers reserved to the States that provide a mediated check upon the powers exercised by the federal government, otherwise the whole system would have been subversive to the enumeration found within the Constitution.

The common consensus from the Declaration of Independence through the ratification of the Constitution was that the States, by concurrent consent of the People of the Several States, might modify or dissolve the union by the Right of Self-Government. The People have never relinquished that right and in that Right they retrain absolute and complete Sovereignty. The States, by virtue of the Consent and Will of the People, in Constitutional Compact, retained all power to influence the operations of the federal government in order to maintain the security of their Liberty.

The power reserved to the States and the People respectively demonstrates a particular supremacy over the federal government in that Congress can be compelled, by the States, to call a Constitutional Convention that can, based upon the Will and Consent of the People, ratify changes to the federal government without the consent of any branch of the federal government. In terms of strict Constitutional order, the federal government cannot change itself, nor can it change the governments of the States. While the Constitution enumerates those powers reserved to the States to affect the means and manner of operation of the federal government, it does not enumerate such powers to the federal government over the States. It is evident that while powers of the State Constitutions are limited, that limitation is not placed upon them by the federal Constitution, but by the People of the individual States themselves.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

The business of TSA is resolving alarms, whether you walk through the mag, or other device, which may alarm. However, the alrm sounds when you walk through, the alarm must be reconciled. What's so unclear about this, 'cept that this fuzziness about it is just stubborness???

Ranger11 said...

Travel is a "God Given" right? Now our travel is something God said we could do? C'mon folks. I want to travel unimpeded just like the next guy, but God is not in this fight. Everything is regulated. It gets regulated because people (us) complain to their Senators and Congressmen and women and they enact laws that require regulating. This is so far gone at this point, I'm not sure that anything constructive can become of this thread anymore. But seriously, God, does not give rights. God and rights and laws, are you serious? I guess you are. It's here in black and white. Unbelievable. That's a road that should not be traveled in this forum. I'm talking about schools and self preservation and the right to bare arms. All stuff that we just keep giving away and we want to fight over someone making sure our lives aren't at risk more than necessary when we fly. I'm for change and reform of the current system in place. But let's not get silly.

Robert Lundgren said...

I think one of the revolutionaries said "Give me Liberty or give me Death". The guy who said 'Give me Security or give me Death' is not so well known.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Ranger11 says:
...God, does not give rights.

Bob [not the blogger] aks:
You mean to tell me -- tell US -- that Jefferson, supported by the signers, was wrong where he says,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"???

NOW you tell us.

Soooo, is YOUR version self-evident, or is his?

Anonymous said...

Quoted:
:" Jonathan B. said...
COWARDS. your going to remove TSA and shut down airports if this goes through? Then your nothing but a bunch of rapists in my book, using coersion to further your utopian 1 world agenda. Good luck with that because real texans will stand up against you.

May 25, 2011 3:01 PM"

---------------------
Actually, those "real texans" backed down mighty quick when they realized they didn't have a leg to stand on legally.

Anonymous said...

i cant believe how this has become such an anti-fed-govt blog. lets stick to the point.

dscoil said...

I flew more than 200,000 miles last year on United. I travel the globe and recognize that what airlines and TSA provide is a service. This service is a privilege not a right. My expectation is that when I pay for this service to go from A to B, that I will be able to do so safely. I think that TSA and the airlines need to be stricter on their screening to assure us travelers do arrive with no issue. If you are offended by the new screens, pat downs etc, you don't have to fly. There are other ways to get there.

I find it interesting that in all the countries I travel to, (~10 last year) that nobody complains or argues with their security screeners. It is simply part of life, if you travel via air, to go through various screening methods. I would like to see TSA and airlines, deny boarding to those that have some personal moral issue with such screening. These people that are doing the screening are not able to take your fuzzy grey image and link it back to you and put it up on the internet. And even if they did, so what.

I had an elder standing behind me in the TSA line today from Seattle to Sacramento and was complaining about the new vision screening systems they were using and that us frequent travelers needed to put our foot down. She was upset that I didn't agree with her. I simply told her that this technology is helping TSA make travel safer. Her reply was that TSA has stopped no one with these security check points, that ALL security issues have been resolved by passengers on planes. I am sad to see such non-factual thinking by someone that is clearly very articulate and educated. I simply am astonished at our entitlement approach to travel these days and failure of some to recognize that flying is a privilege and not a right.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
Take your copy of the Fourth Amendment, and be sure to listen when they tell you that there is no violation where there is what the law calls "implied consent"...REMEMBER: You CHOSE to enter the checkpoint.

If I need to be a long distance away in a short amount of time, the only reasonable option is to fly commercial. (Yes, I could charter a flight, but that's too expensive. Yes, I could take a train, or a car, or a bus, or even walk- but that's too slow.) Thus, as the ONLY option I have, it is NOT a "choice".

Anonymous said...

I keep seeing people say the flying is a privilege. Who gets to decide that? What else is a "privilege"? Walking on the sidewalk? Shopping in a store? Having a job?

Show me where in the Constitution it defines what a "privilege" is and where it says that the government can take away "privileges" whenever it wants.

The law defines legal and illegal, privilege isn't a valid legal concept.

The US government was set up to put limits on the government and give as much freedom as possible to the people. Not the other way around, which is what the TSA seems to want.

Anonymous said...

im glad you know your constitution bob , but you cant pick and choose which amendments you like and dont like. its all or none. you cant have it both ways. also. could you possibly tell me wich federal law the texas hb1937 would come in conflict with? been trying to find it. cant find it. also there are already laws on the books that say you cant touch peoples genitals. a police officer has to have probable cause to do that. should the TSA have more power than a police officer? i think not bob.

Timothy Berkmans said...

Josh D,

You are WRONG. Flying isn't a privilege granted by the government.

It is a service provided by airlines.

It is a violation of the 4th Amendment because it is quite clear that if someone from the government wants to search you, they need probably cause.

The TSA represents the government.

Just showing up at an airport with a suitcase doesn't grant the government probable cause.

Government officials have taken an Oath to the Constitution. The TSA is violating this oath.

Sheriffs and State officials have also taken the same oath. They can take steps to protects the citizens from Natural Rights abuses.

Anonymous said...

It's telling that the TSA never addresses the fact that Texas had majority bi-partisan support for the law that was threatened by the US attorney (at the last possible hour). Your constant repetition of number of complaints from passengers can't hide the fact of what millions of taxpaying Americans really think of your organization.

Thank God an election is coming in 2012 - Americans will have a choice to vote for freedom and liberty.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

There is no Fourth Amendment issue where you give your consent to a search.

The prob cause is, in this age, just showing up at the airport. Signs warn you that you are subject to search. So, if you continue onto the airport, your consent to a search, if necessary, is implied.

If you chose to walk onto the checkpoint, your consent is implied, but more so if you trip an alarm. TSA must reconcile that alarm, and you will not be allowed to go on, nor turn around and go out, until you are searched.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

If you don't like TSA, nor its mission, you can take another form of transporation.

If other forms are not viable, and you must take a commercial flight, you may choose not to go after all. The choice is yours even if you simply MUST get somewhere and flying is the only way you can go. You must choose whether your mission is important enough.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Flying a commercial airline is based on a contract between the airline and you. You have the Right to make contracts.

However, the airline is a private company, and its aircraft are the airline's property. Private property owners are not required tu uphold constitutional Rights; they may kick you off for any reason, as long as they give you your money back.

The airlines have an agreement with the government and the municipality that owns the airport. The federal government gives them subsidies, inone form, or another, and the airlines and municipalites agree to do some things to get the money.

The added feature of this is that airline security is law.

So, you do not have a Right to get on an airplane owned by somebody else, and that property owner -- the airline -- has the Right and legal responsibility to make sure the flight is safe. TSA is there to help make that come true.

ROBERT ZIPP said...

The only way the people (employers (by way of taxes)) can affect the government or any of it's entities (our employees (TSA)) is to stop giving them money. It's always about the money. The day a large enough group of people will do something akin to refusing to pay taxes or for products from companies that have high governmental influence (plane tickets, gasoline, etc.) will be the day that the government has to stop its constant logorrhea and blatant and increasing abuse of power and listen to it's employers.

I propose we do just that!

I am calling for a boycott of the government of the United States of America. Affecting the finances of this country would most definitely effect change. The fastest way to get a man's attention is to screw with his money.

Or, like many have stated, we can just deal with it (the continual infringement upon our rights) to avoid any discomfort in the lives that we 'have complete control over'.

But, if we can get enough people interested (millions), now that would be something for the news, wouldn't it?

One would think it silly to say such things. Similar words were said by some crazy guys when they didn't like how their government ran things a few hundred years ago...

Here's my name; I ain't scared.

CJ Grisham said...

Hey, TSA, before you go getting a big head about this, you didn't win. Far from it. Rather, a bunch of cowards backed off. But don't worry. Texans have awaken to the reality of the yellow bellies in our State Legislature and we'll be back with this bill. Better start figuring out your defense NOW instead of gloating.

Charles K Transue said...

I noticed that my last comment never appeared, so I assume that whoever monitors this blog from the TSA side didn't appreciate my use of a certain word that starts with the letter "A" (even though that word is NOT "foul language" or a curse word - it's a MEDICAL TERM) when referring to a particular body part a TSA agent might touch if I'm forced to receive a "pat down".
Well, gee, guys, I'm SOOOOO sorry I offended your delicate sensibilities. I guess medical terminology is now just as out of bounds as are words considered vulgar. My point, however, is still the same: Sooner or later, you're going to have to wake up and see that Americans will stand for only so much intimidation before they rise up and - well, I'll be polite - REPLACE you. Be prepared to see a great many of your former coworkers standing in the unemployment lines. Oh, I forgot - they can all go to work for the IRS and be assured of an even MORE secure government job, free of the constraints of actually having to produce something of intrinsic value. Is that too far off the topic? I don't think so. Just know that, as an organization, you're either going to have to dramatically alter your methods, or you're going to be looking for employment in a very tough job market.

Anonymous said...

The TSA is the embodiment of everything the founding fathers sought to prevent when they came together to create our Country. God willing our President will come to his sensus and do the right thing and put these fools out of work. It is patriotic to decent and to be an optimist. Even when that optimism is wrongfully viewed as extremism under the misguided thinking of Bob and his benefactors.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

ROBERT ZIPP says:
The only way the people (employers (by way of taxes)) can affect the government or any of it's entities (our employees (TSA)) is to stop giving them money. It's always about the money. The day a large enough group of people will do something akin to refusing to pay taxes or for products from companies that have high governmental influence (plane tickets, gasoline, etc.) will be the day that the government has to stop its constant logorrhea and blatant and increasing abuse of power and listen to it's employers.

I propose we do just that!

I am calling for a boycott of the government of the United States of America.

Mr. Incredible says:
[You gotta be kidding.]

Let us know how that works out.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Anonymous says:
The TSA is the embodiment of everything the founding fathers sought to prevent when they came together to create our Country.

Mr. Incredible asks:
Really?? How so?

Anonymous says:
God willing our President will come to his sensus [sic] and do the right thing and put these fools out of work.

Mr. Incredible asks:
Who says that's the "right thing"?

Anonymous said...

It's a very sad day when the federal government starts threating citizens to prevent them doing what they want.

What ever happened to the idea that this country is supposed to be a democracy and the opinion of the people is supposed to matter?

Anonymous said...

I can't help to respond to what Bob (not the Blogger) said...below. Most, if not all, Americans want to be safe and secure when we fly. However, most law-abiding taxpayers do not want to be molested when we go to the airport. The TSA is doing what government bureaucrats do...the TSA is throwing people with tawdry practices at a problem that needs to be solved with intelligence and technology. Multiple states are looking to limit TSA pat-downs. Instead of defending these unacceptable procedures, the TSA needs to wisely spend American's tax dollars to work smarter, not harder. It's clear the current TSA leadership lacks the skills to transition to an intelligence based system.
**************************

If you don't like TSA, nor its mission, you can take another form of transporation.

If other forms are not viable, and you must take a commercial flight, you may choose not to go after all. The choice is yours even if you simply MUST get somewhere and flying is the only way you can go. You must choose whether your mission is important enough.

Anonymous said...

The other Bob still does not get it. He makes statements that show that he does not understand the TSA. "If you don't like TSA, nor its mission, you can take another form of transporation."

The TSA is the TRANSPORTATION Safety Administration. They can do the same thing to us on bus, rail, ships, bridges etc. We can not take transplantation that is safe from the TSA.

Anonymous said...

TSA, feel free to list how many terrorist attacks you have stopped by violating the constitution.

We're waiting.

Tracy said...

Hey Bob,

Don't celebrate too much - Utah might be next to introduce a "No Pat Down" bill.

TSORon said...

An Anonymous poster asked…
“could you possibly tell me wich federal law the texas hb1937 would come in conflict with?”
-------------------
Yes, that would be Public Law 107 - 71 - Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001


Timothy Berkmans said...
It is a violation of the 4th Amendment because it is quite clear that if someone from the government wants to search you, they need probably cause.
-------------------
Actually Tim, Article III of the Constitution of the United States of America designates the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) as the final arbiter in all matters legal. Since your concern is about what you perceive to be a legal violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to address that concern. They have, many times. SCOTUS has consistently upheld that administrative searches such as are performed at airports both legal and fully within the confines of Administrative Search legal constraints.

Bob [not the blogger] said...
The prob cause is, in this age, just showing up at the airport.
------------------
That’s not entirely accurate Bob. Its not “Probable Cause” that one provides when arriving at an airport checkpoint, its “Implied Consent”.

Dont Tread On Me said...

My first comment was discarded just like, I suspect, complaints. The TSA is a cure worse than the disease. Nay, it is simply a more virulent disease given that the TSA has NEVER got a SINGLE terrorist.

Anonymous said...

Bob the answer to how you would resolve medical implants issues with a pat down is clearly as insane as most of the other answers we are given by tsa. What was it you said its something like
"Its sensitive secret information"
Are you kidding??? Anything the tsa doesn't have a sensible answer for is "Secret Information"

Bob [not the blogger] said...

TSA is doing its job. TSA agents, in full view of passengers, visitors and cameras everywhere, are not molesting anybody.

It's clear that the critics of TSA inflate their arguments to make it seem as though TSA is doing something unlawful when it is not.

The point remains: You choose to go through security. You're not required to go through security, unless you require yourself to go through security. If you choose to go through security, your consent to a search is implied. If you consent to a search, whether you say, "Yes," or whether your consent is implied, there is no Fourth Amendment issue.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

The part of the Constitution that indirectly authorizes patdowns is the Fourth Amendment.

When you consent to a search that you know, ahead of time, is about to happen, and you go into the area where there are detection devices, and there is signage all around telling you about this scenario, you have no complaint when the search is carried out; either you agreed with the search, or your consent was implied. That voids Fourth Amendment protection. You cannot invoke Fourth Amendment when you consent to a search. You know, ahead of time, whether you actually consent to a search. If you don't consent actually, do go to where your consent is implied. Simple.

kimm said...

So, TSA is sensitive to religious and cultural needs (take a wild guess)but not to the handicapped.

And please don't say you are, because if you were, I should NOT be pulled out simply because I am in a brace even after I cleared all your other humiliating hurdles and it is clearly, and I mean CLEARLY obvious that NOTHING can be hidden in the brace that would not be seen with the naked eye, due to the type I wear.

Maybe I and other handicapped people need to look into discrimination.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Bob [not the blogger} says:
If you don't like TSA, nor its mission, you can take another form of transporation.

Anonymous says:
The TSA is the TRANSPORTATION Safety Administration. They can do the same thing to us on bus, rail, ships, bridges etc.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
So can the police. yet, you fail to criticize their techniques.

Anonymous says:
We can not take transplantation [sic] that is safe from the TSA.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
TSA is not covering ALL transport modes. As far as I know, TSA is not at bus terminals, nor taxi stands, for example.

How 'bout you rent a car? Carpool?

If it's sooooo important for you to avoid TSA, you should be very greatly motivated to find another, TSA-less way to where you wanna go.

Anonymous said...

Myth: The TSA has only received 898 complaints about the screening process.

Fact: I have probably read about 898 different complaints MYSELF!

Myth: Texas attempting to regulate TSA patdowns is a state trying to nullify federal legislation.

Fact: NO federal law authorises invasive patdowns and state and federal law ALREADY forbid them!

Anonymous said...

timothy berkmans said:
"It is a violation of the 4th Amendment because it is quite clear that if someone from the government wants to search you, they need probably cause."

well the people being searched are the ones that are volunteering to go through the checkpoints. its not like the tsa is going up to you and searching you before the checkpoints. there are signs that state that once you get in line you are subject to search so by getting in line you are consenting to a search of your person and/or property. you are giving them the consent to search you by being there. if you dont want to get searched then dont get in line or go through. the people in line are volunteering for the search the tsa isnt volating anything.

Anonymous said...

Bob (not the blogger) just doesn't get it...the TSA expects to hire from the general public with minimal wages, provide a few weeks of government supplied training and expect them to act professionally with millions of Americans. Subsequently, people are outraged that there are weekly reports of issues with the TSA workforce. Should anyone really be surprised? The issue is with the disconnected TSA and DHS leadership - they simply are not competent to develop a system that relies on intellect and knowledge.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] said:
TSA is not covering ALL transport modes. As far as I know, TSA is not at bus terminals, nor taxi stands, for example.

Youtube video of a news station's coverage of a VIPR team at a Tampa, FL Greyhound station.

Looks to me like even if the TSA isn't currently active at bus stations, there are plans in the works to do so.

Anonymous said...

is there anything the TSA cannot do to us at airports? if i own one thing in this world its my body. or do i? if a mugger puts a gun to your head and says gimme your money. you can choose to give him your money. kinda like what you guys do huh? if i need to fly you want to see me naked or touch me down there. i really think the TSA has crossed the line. you dont screw with Americans like this and thats who your screwing with Bob. AMERICANS!!

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Anonymous says:
NO federal law authorises invasive patdowns and state and federal law ALREADY forbid them!

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You authorize the search, give consent, when you walk onto the checkpoint. Your consent is implied. It's not necessary for you to say, "Yes."

If you want not to be searched, just choose not to walk through into the secure area.

If flying commercial is the ONLY way you have, then you have a decision to make. If it's so important that you not be searched, then, we guess, you're not flying.

Anonymous said...

Thank you TSA for keeping me and my family safe when we fly.

Thank you to all the hard work you do, and thank you for protecting American citizens, even the ones who aren't intelligent enough to realize that this is required for their safety.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
The point remains: You choose to go through security. You're not required to go through security, unless you require yourself to go through security.

When the TSA is preventing you from doing something important if you refuse to comply then this isn't voluntary any more, it's coerced.

By your logic, if I point as gun at you and demand your money, you would be "voluntarily" giving me your wallet since you have the choice to refuse.

When there is a penalty for refusing then it isn't voluntary. Driving a car is not a valid substitute for flying.

How about we remove the useless security theater and if you are too scared to fly then you can do the driving? Since you think driving is a reasonable substitute for flying you shouldn't have a problem with this.

Anonymous said...

I wonder where all the "security at all costs" supporters would draw the line at too invasive? Allowing the TSA freedom to do whatever they want is a slippery slope you don't want to start down.

How about the following:
- No luggage and no carry ons
- real strip search
- body cavity search
- full body X-ray
- no clothes - flu nude
- strap all passengers into their chairs
- no doors on the restrooms
- drug all passengers unconscious

All of these would improve safety - are you willing to go that far? If not, then how do you justify electronic strip search and pat downs? Either you are all in or your aren't.

Anonymous said...

The tsa stated they would stop all flights in and out of Texas ,this is in fact financial terrorism,stopping free travel of Americans with in Americas borders is against the constitution,the commerce clause in the tenth amendment ,by stopping flights the tsa would in fact be stopping commerce witch would in fact be financial terrorism.

Anonymous said...

TSORon said...
An Anonymous poster asked…
“could you possibly tell me wich federal law the texas hb1937 would come in conflict with?”
-------------------
Yes, that would be Public Law 107 - 71 - Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001


Ooh, sorry, no. That Act says nothing about "groping" or "genitals". Try again.

Oh, and please tell us why the TSA is so concerned about a law that bans something the TSA claims it doesn't do anyway.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
TSA is doing its job. TSA agents, in full view of passengers, visitors and cameras everywhere, are not molesting anybody.

Bob, where do you live? I'll be right over to shove my hand down your daughters pants. Remember, as long as I do it "in full view", it's Not molestation, Right?

(BloggerBob- this was a joke, not a threat.)

The point remains: You choose to go through security. You're not required to go through security, unless you require yourself to go through security. If you choose to go through security, your consent to a search is implied. If you consent to a search, whether you say, "Yes," or whether your consent is implied, there is no Fourth Amendment issue.

The point remains: You choose to walk down a dark alley. You're not required to walk down a dark alley, unless you require yourself to walk down a dark alley. If you choose to walk down a dark alley, your consent to giving a mugger your wallet is implied. If you consent to giving a mugger your wallet, whether you say, "Yes," or whether your consent is implied, there is no theft.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
TSA is not covering ALL transport modes. As far as I know, TSA is not at bus terminals, nor taxi stands, for example.

You're not very well informed, are you?

http://tiny.cc/asi06
"TSA is now at bus stations, body scanners coming too?"

http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2004/press_release_0444.shtm
"FACT SHEET: Train and Rail Inspection Pilot, Phase I" [dated june 7,2004!]

Well, at least you can walk, Right?

http://tiny.cc/eej32
"Documents Reveal TSA Research Proposal To Body-Scan Pedestrians, Train Passengers"

How 'bout you rent a car? Carpool?

Great. Know of any car pools to Hawaii? Europe? Coast to Coast USA? If I'm in Los Angeles and need to be in Boston in 8 hours or less, what kind of car should I rent??

If it's sooooo important for you to avoid TSA, you should be very greatly motivated to find another, TSA-less way to where you wanna go.

As has been pointed out, the TSA is spreading out to cover all the possible ways to travel.

SciMjr2 said...

Can I ask a question to the TSA people we have here constantly blowing us off?

Do you, as TSA agents, care about anything we say? Honestly? Do you take our complaints about being touched and groped and being seen nude via scanners seriously? Do you understand our concerns? Can you "feel our pain" as Clinton always claimed he could?

Or do you take the position of ANYTHING to keep people safe? No matter how uncomfortable people are made, no matter how invasive searches get in the future it WILL be done so long as the illusion is present that we are making people safer.

f2000 said...

TSORon said...

---------------


Ron,
Remember when the Supreme Court backed slavery, separate but equal & killing babies?

You'll have to actually make a case for continued legitimacy and this expansion beyond previous "administrative search" decisions (themselves rationalizations of policy that they wanted to implement despite the constitution's restrictions). None of those specifically addressed the unauthorized touching of little girls and governmental harassment of sexual assault victims.

f2000 said...

More on administrative searches at:

http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/111/2/Primus.pdf
----------------

As a matter of black letter law, a search conducted without probable
cause and a search warrant is unconstitutional except in a few unusual situations.1 In the Supreme Court’s formulation, “warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment” unless they fall
within “a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to that general rule.”2

-----------

Even when the administrative search exception underwrote far fewer searches than it does today, scholars described this area of Fourth Amendment doctrine as incoherent,16 “abysmal,”17 and “devoid of content.”18

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
well the people being searched are the ones that are volunteering to go through the checkpoints.

You need to look up what "volunteer" means. When you will be punished for not cooperating that isn't "volunteering".

If you don't cooperate you aren't allowed to fly. Flying has value - that's why people pay hundreds of dollars to do it. Not being allowed to fly is a punishment - something of value is being taken away from you.

You don't "voluntarily" submit to the TSA search any more than you "voluntarily" pay your taxes.

Alexei Fimine said...

This is not going to end well. Not for the USA, not for the world. And you small-time power-tripping NWO minions will be one of the first ones to get disposed by your masters.

Wake up and stop being part of this diabolic system!

Anonymous said...

This guy nails you and your stupid use of the Supremacy Clause "Blogger Bob".

http://www.libertyreborn.com/2011/05/27/to-tyranny-and-beyond/

Earl Pitts said...

@Anon: "well the people being searched are the ones that are volunteering to go through the checkpoints. its not like the tsa is going up to you and searching you before the checkpoints. there are signs that state that once you get in line you are subject to search so by getting in line you are consenting to a search of your person and/or property. you are giving them the consent to search you by being there. if you dont want to get searched then dont get in line or go through. the people in line are volunteering for the search the tsa isnt volating anything."

What you're missing is that the consent is given for a LIMITED administrative search, that is supposed to be conducted using the LEAST INVASIVE means to accomplish screening for WEI. This does not give TSA a carte blanche to search for whatever they want. They've already been slapped down on that in Bierfeldt and Fofana when they were sued for exceeding the scope of the search. Even with a search warrant, searches are limited in scope. Exceeding the scope of a search is a great way to get in trouble and have evidence tossed out.

Remember, I can place a sign outside your house saying that stepping off of your property is consent to being searched, robbed, beaten, or otherwise abused. Placing a sign and saying that a person doing the signed action (you stepping off your property) makes otherwise illegal actions legal simply because you "consented" by stepping off your property. TSA doesn't get a free pass on that either, despite what it claims.

Earl

Dont Tread On Me said...

I guess only Bob [not the blogger] is entitled to have his comments posted immediately and unfiltered. King George taxed tea and never had the colonists groped. Yet we consider him to be a tyrant. Think about it.

Anonymous said...

I never realized there were this many lunatics on Texas. But hey, your Governor already wanted to secede from the union - but now he wants to be President? Goodness.

Texas could have just as easily been in Mexico. Good luck with that by the way.

Anonymous said...

Supremecy clause or not, I guess you'll just throw your officers under the bus and let them test it in the courts. May take a few decades to whipe the felony convictions off their records though.

RB said...

Anonymous said...
This guy nails you and your stupid use of the Supremacy Clause "Blogger Bob".

http://www.libertyreborn.com/2011/05/27/to-tyranny-and-beyond/

May 30, 2011 3:38 PM

...................
The article clearly shows the weakness in TSA's position.

Ayn R. Key said...

Good point RB, the title of this blog post.

Since according to Blogger Bob, the TSA doesn't touch the "naughty bits" during a pat down, and this Texas Law would have banned touching the "naughty bits", then this law CAN'T ban the "Current TSA Pat-Down".

So Bob, did you lie about procedure, or did you lie in the title of this post?

Anonymous said...

May not be dead yet. Texas has called for a special extended legislation session.

On the other side some serious questions have cropped up about jurisdiction. Check out flyingwithfish blog.

Basically TSA says it's a DOJ issue. DOJ has no jurisdiction in this matter. DOJ said it was a TSA issue, then said it was a U.S. attorney issue. U.S. attorney has said nothing.

I wish this mess would all just get fast tracked to the SCOTUS.

Anonymous said...

does the TSA have the right to touch the private parts of Americans or do they have the priviledge to touch the private parts of Americans?

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
The point remains: You choose to go through security. You're not required to go through security, unless you require yourself to go through security.

Anonymous says:
When the TSA is preventing you from doing something important…

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Nobody is stopping you from doing anything. You CHOOSE to go through security, or you CHOOSE not to go through security.

Anonymous says:
… If you refuse to comply then this isn't voluntary any more, it's coerced.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You choose whether to comply, or not, BEFORE you enter the secure area. Once you enter the secure area, and have alarmed, the source of the alarm must be reconciled. So, by walking through the doorways onto the secure area, your consent to the search is implied, and you may not believe, one way, or the other, until the source of the alarm is reconciled.

Anonymous says:
By your logic, if I point as gun at you and demand your money, you would be "voluntarily" giving me your wallet since you have the choice to refuse.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Sorry, that's not MY logic. It may be YOURS, but it doesn't square with the TSA/security scenario.

Anonymous says:
When there is a penalty for refusing then it isn't voluntary.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
There is no penalty for refusing BEFORE you enter the secure area. Actually, there is no penalty even when you're in a secure area. None of this is against you. It's for the safety of everybody.

Anonymous says:
Driving a car is not a valid substitute for flying.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
It depends on what's more important to you.

If it's more important that you avoid what you find repugnant, then you find another way.

It is more important that you fly commercial, then, of course, you must agree to be treated the way EVERYBODY else is treated.

If you feel that, for YOU, that treatment is it necessary, you have a decision to make.

Anonymous says:
How about we remove the useless security theater…

Bob [not the blogger] says:
"Useless," according to whom?

Anonymous asks:
… and if you are too scared to fly then you can do the driving?

Bob [not the blogger] says:
That's an alternative I am allowed to choose.

Anonymous says:
Since you think driving is a reasonable substitute for flying you shouldn't have a problem with this.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
If it's so important for me to avoid what I imagine to the "unreasonable" searches at the airport, driving to my destination is certainly another way, based on that reason.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Anonymous says:
The tsa stated they would stop all flights in and out of Texas ,this is in fact financial terrorism…

Bob [not the blogger] says:
No, it isn't.

The State of Texas, including municipalities with airports having commercial traffic, agree with the federal government to do specific things. The agreement is that the federal government will give the municipality money in return for compliance. Agreement is key. So, if the municipality running the airport objects to the rule, the municipality doesn't have to get the money.

Anonymous says:
…stopping free travel of Americans…

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Nobody is stopping "free travel."

Anonymous says:
…with in Americas borders is against the constitution…

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You are free to fly on PRIVATELY OWNED aircraft – owned by companies that must comply with National Airspace rules and regulations and any other municipality ordinances. Those municipality ordinances may be the result of agreements between the federal government and the municipality. Those agreements allow the municipalities to get money from the federal government. They may refuse the agreement. If they do, they don't get the money. Simple.

Anonymous says:
… the commerce clause in the tenth amendment…

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Now you're stretching.

Anonymous says:
…by stopping flights the tsa would in fact be stopping commerce…

Bob [not the blogger] says:
When the Highway Patrol stops a truck on the interstate, he stops commerce. When the police stop a bus carrying fare-paying passengers, they stop commerce.

Were the State of Texas to buck the security scheme that IS in place, by agreement, at municipality-owned airports in Texas, Texas would be stopping commerce. TSA would merely be enforcing the agreement.

Anonymous says:
… witch [sic] would in fact be financial terrorism.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Which, in fact, would not be financial terrorism. It would be an enforcement of the contract.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
TSA is doing its job. TSA agents, in full view of passengers, visitors and cameras everywhere, are not molesting anybody.

Anonymous says:
Bob, where do you live?

Bob [not the blogger] says:
None of your business.

Anonymous says:
I'll be right over to shove my hand down your daughters pants.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You referred to the vid of the TSA agent searching a six-year-old girl.

Take a good, close look at the vid. At NO point does the TSA agent stick your hands down the girl's pants.

Anonymous says:
Remember, as long as I do it "in full view", it's Not molestation, Right?

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You misrepresent what I wrote.

NO one would stick their hands down a six-year-old girl's pants with so many people and cameras around. That's not to say that this TSA agent wouldn't do it when nobody's looking. We don't know. We DO know that, on that vid, she didn't.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
The point remains: You choose to go through security. You're not required to go through security, unless you require yourself to go through security. If you choose to go through security, your consent to a search is implied. If you consent to a search, whether you say, "Yes," or whether your consent is implied, there is no Fourth Amendment issue.

Anonymous says:
The point remains: You choose to walk down a dark alley. You're not required to walk down a dark alley, unless you require yourself to walk down a dark alley. If you choose to walk down a dark alley, your consent to giving a mugger your wallet is implied.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
That's ridiculous. You can't do better than that??

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
How 'bout you rent a car? Carpool?

Anonymous says:
Great. Know of any car pools to Hawaii?

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You can carpool to port, load the car onto a boat, and you're off!

Anonymous says:
Europe?

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You can carpool to port, load the car onto a boat, and away y'go!

Anonymous says:
Coast to Coast USA?

Bob [not the blogger] says:
I know that there ARE people driving from one state to another, or coast to coast, looking for people to share the ride.

Anonymous says:
If I'm in Los Angeles and need to be in Boston in 8 hours or less, what kind of car should I rent??

Bob [not the blogger] says:
We can't say much about your ability to plan ahead if, suddenly, you gotta be in Boston in 8 hours, or less.
You're free to plan far enough ahead so that you can get there in time.

Now, if your boss says, "I need you here in 8 hours," you, having absolutely rejected airline pre-board screening, can say, "I'm not flying cuz I don't like the security at the airport, and, so, it'll take me 36 hours to drive there," and see what he says. Then, you gotta decision to make, what be mo' impo'tant to you an' yo' fam'ly.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
If it's sooooo important for you to avoid TSA, you should be very greatly motivated to find another, TSA-less way to where you wanna go.

Anonymous says:
As has been pointed out, the TSA is spreading out to cover all the possible ways to travel.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You gotta decision to make, then, whether to go on being stubborn and bitter and rebellious against a manufactured threat, or finding another way to go, like hiring a private plane. YeahYeah, there ya go! Hire a private jet! Again how much is your stubborness, bitterness and rebelliousness worth to you? By that standard, if we see correctly, the jet is cheap.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Anonymous says:
Flying has value - that's why people pay hundreds of dollars to do it.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
The fare covers ONLY the flying part, not bypassing security. The fare goes to a private company. It's an agreement between you and the company, not you, the company and TSA to bypass security, too.

Anonymous says:
Not being allowed to fly is a punishment - something of value is being taken away from you.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Not true. NOBODY is taking anything away from you. You can fly any time there is a flight.

Anonymous says:
You don't "voluntarily" submit to the TSA search any more than you "voluntarily" pay your taxes.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
NOBODY would "voluntarily" pay taxes, if they could get away with it. That's why there is a law to compel you to pay taxes. The State needs to do that so that it can run the machinery of the country.

You are NOT compelled to go through pre-board security. You may decide not to go through and TSA cannot go after you and punish you. You bring the consequences on yourself.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Somebody else says:
well the people being searched are the ones that are volunteering to go through the checkpoints.

Anonymous says:
You need to look up what "volunteer" means. When you will be punished for not cooperating that isn't "volunteering".

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You're not punished. You know what's ahead, and you make a decision whether to participate in the security process for the safety of ALL, given the circumstances. You may choose not to go through security, turn around and go elsewhere. It's YOUR choice. Of course, there are consequences, and you gotta be big enough to accept them, like you don't fly if you choose not to go through security.

Anonymous says:
If you don't cooperate you aren't allowed to fly.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
The choice whether to cooperate, like choosing whether to speed down the Interstate -- is YOURS.

If you're caught speeding, you don't tell the officer that you gotta be in Boston in fewer than 8 hours cuz you know he is concerned only about your safety, and the safety of others that you're jeopardizing.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Somebody else says:
well the people being searched are the ones that are volunteering to go through the checkpoints.

Anonymous says:
You need to look up what "volunteer" means. When you will be punished for not cooperating that isn't "volunteering".

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You're not punished. You know what's ahead, and you make a decision whether to participate in the security process for the safety of ALL, given the circumstances. You may choose not to go through security, turn around and go elsewhere. It's YOUR choice. Of course, there are consequences, and you gotta be big enough to accept them, like you don't fly if you choose not to go through security.

Anonymous says:
If you don't cooperate you aren't allowed to fly.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
The choice whether to cooperate, like choosing whether to speed down the Interstate -- is YOURS.

If you're caught speeding, you don't tell the officer that you gotta be in Boston in fewer than 8 hours cuz you know he is concerned only about your safety, and the safety of others that you're jeopardizing.

Anonymous said...

Bob, not the blogger.

I have to give you credit, you are consistent. Frequently wrong, but consistent.

The pat-down procedure as put in place last November has yet to be court tested. However several of TSA's policies/actions have been and been found to be illegal or at least the recipient has been found in the right.

You can continue spouting the company line all you want but obviously people are going to continue griping.

I suspect in the future there will be many more changes, many will probably be against the TSA. But who knows maybe this is just another step in the abolishment of Constitutional protections. After all it's just a piece of paper.

Sandy said...

The reason your number of complaints is low is that we, the public, are afraid that we will not be allowed to fly if we complain. The current TSA procedures are invasive, embarrassing, unconstitutional, and lastly, ineffective. I now fly as seldom as possible.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...I have lost count of the number of times I have asked the question ( and the number of times you have not bothered to answer Blogger Bob ): how are medical/cosmetic implants beneath the skin resolved if they alarm AIT? A pat-down could not possibly resolve these. May 14, 2011 2:57 PM

------------------------

While I would love to answer this one, I'm not able to get into procedures such as this one. I know what I'm about to say is akin to a shaking up a hornet nest around here, but this is Sensitive Security Information (SSI)that I'm not able to discuss.

Thanks,

Blogger Bob
___________________________________

What do you mean this is SSI?!

The AIT machines do not see under the skin. There for there would be no alarm for an implant under the skin. Easy answer and no SSI involved!

Anonymous said...

"To his dismay, though, the Houston lawmaker was left to face the Feds alone, abandoned not only by his fellow senators but by the lieutenant governor himself. Patrick ended up withdrawing House Bill 1937 from further consideration."
-----------------------------

Guy can't even get support from his own peeps!

Anonymous said...

To Fellow Americans,

It is useless to post on this blog hoping the TSA will change their policies and procedures. This blog is a complete waste of tax dollars and taxpayer time. Blog comments are rarely, if ever, addressed. Constructive suggestions are rarely, if ever, implemented by the TSA leadership. This blog serves only as a sad and pathetic reminder that disconnected Washington bureaucrats do not work for, or respectfully acknowledge, American taxpayers.

If Americans want to change the TSA, time would be much better spent to elect policitians that will not request change, but legislate positive change affecting millions of American travelers that the TSA keeps promising but has yet to deliver.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You referred to the vid of the TSA agent searching a six-year-old girl.

Take a good, close look at the vid. At NO point does the TSA agent stick your hands down the girl's pants.


(I assume you meant "stick her hands".)

WRONG. The TSA screener quite clearly says "I'm going to put my hands inside your waistband, all the way around", and then does it. It's about 45 seconds into the video.

NO one would stick their hands down a six-year-old girl's pants with so many people and cameras around.

And yet, that TSA screener DID do just that. Go fig.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
The point remains: You choose to go through security. You're not required to go through security, unless you require yourself to go through security. If you choose to go through security, your consent to a search is implied. If you consent to a search, whether you say, "Yes," or whether your consent is implied, there is no Fourth Amendment issue.

Anonymous says:
The point remains: You choose to walk down a dark alley. You're not required to walk down a dark alley, unless you require yourself to walk down a dark alley. If you choose to walk down a dark alley, your consent to giving a mugger your wallet is implied.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
That's ridiculous. You can't do better than that??


It's your own exact argument, turned back on you.

At least you acknowledge your own stance is 'ridiculous'.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

I wonder which commercial air carriers are on the side of the critics. None, I'll bet. Why? Cuz they want safety. They also have hundreds of millions of dollars in equipment to protect. None of them say TSA goes too far.

The fact of the matter is that the air carrier is a private company. It's airplanes are private property. You have no Right on private property without the permission of the property owner. In this case, that permission comes in the form of a fare paid for a ticket. When you accept that ticket, you agree to go through the procedures necessary for the safety of the flight. The air carrier may kick you off that flight at any time while the airplane is on the ground.

The pilot in command is beholden to FAR 91.3 which says that the pilot in command is responsible for the safety of the flight.

Under today's conditions in the world, if I, the pilot in command, walk through security and see one of these critics giving TSA agents a hard time, and I know he's on my flight, he won't get on my flight. If, somehow, he gets on the airplane, I will not depart until he's taken off the airplane.

At that point, the boisterous critic will have a decision to make – that is, the other passengers won't be happy with him for delaying their flight. You can see where THAT could go from there.

When you buy that airline ticket, you have full disclosure and, knowing what lies ahead, you give your consent to security. In any case, TSA implies your consent.

However, the bottom line is that the airplanes are private property, and the air carriers, with equipment and operating certificate to protect, are happy TSA is doing the job.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Anonymous says:
I have to give you credit, you are consistent. Frequently wrong…

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You'd like to think so.

Anonymous says:
…but consistent.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
That cuz I'm correct. Being correct on this means I don't have to worry about consistency. It just happens.

Anonymous says:
The pat-down procedure as put in place last November has yet to be court tested.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
It will be court-supported.

Anonymous says:
However several of TSA's policies/actions have been and been found to be illegal or at least the recipient has been found in the right.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Please link the cases.

Anonymous says:
You can continue spouting the company line…

Bob [not the blogger] says:
It's not a "company line." It's just a line that's correct.

Anonymous says:
… all you want but obviously people are going to continue griping.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
I can't help that they won't listen to reason. Some people just like to gripe.

RB said...

Anonymous said...
"To his dismay, though, the Houston lawmaker was left to face the Feds alone, abandoned not only by his fellow senators but by the lieutenant governor himself. Patrick ended up withdrawing House Bill 1937 from further consideration."
-----------------------------

Guy can't even get support from his own peeps!

June 1, 2011 6:32 PM

.....................Dewhurst may have just reached the end of his political career.

The people of Texas strongly supported this bill and Dewhurst's actions were not well received.


Bob can you tell us why there are 23 posts missing in this thread?

Anonymous said...

Quoted:
" Anonymous said...
Bob [not the blogger] says:
You referred to the vid of the TSA agent searching a six-year-old girl.

Take a good, close look at the vid. At NO point does the TSA agent stick your hands down the girl's pants.

(I assume you meant "stick her hands".)

WRONG. The TSA screener quite clearly says "I'm going to put my hands inside your waistband, all the way around", and then does it. It's about 45 seconds into the video.

NO one would stick their hands down a six-year-old girl's pants with so many people and cameras around.

And yet, that TSA screener DID do just that. Go fig.

June 1, 2011 11:38 PM

----------------------
I hope you are just trying to be inflamatory and don't really think that checking someone's waist band is the same as "reaching down thier pants".

Anonymous said...

The Supremacy Laws don't work unless the laws in question are constitutionally valid. In this case, Unreasonable Search and Seizure, or in this case outright Molestation by TSA officials is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If the law does not abide the constitiution then there is really no governmental measure that provides you any kind of safety. The people know you are wrong, the states know you are wrong, and your threat to make Texas a no-fly zone is a low, low move on your part, almost like a child taking his ball and going home Way to be adults about this, TSA.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
I wonder which commercial air carriers are on the side of the critics. None, I'll bet. Why? Cuz they want safety. They also have hundreds of millions of dollars in equipment to protect. None of them say TSA goes too far.

The air carriers aren't going to say anything either way because they aren't stupid. Anything they said would make someone mad so they stay quiet.

They air carriers will do whatever makes them the most money. They don't really care about the passengers.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
I wonder which commercial air carriers are on the side of the critics. None, I'll bet. Why? Cuz they want safety.

................

The airlines are not complaining because of safety - they aren't complaining as it absolves them of the liability.

To them, TSA affects all airlines 'equally'. As such, the benefit (no liabilty) far exceeds the costs (lost passengers) and they'll claim it's beyond their control and there is little they can do. (A somewhat false narrative, but they know most will accept it as the typical government bureaucracy.)

If the airlines themselves were responsible for the safety, their security checks would be open to free market forces that would allow the passengers to decide what they are comfortable with and to choose an appropriate airline. The airline would need to balance out the security checks against their liability (and their competition) and proceed accordingly.

Once it is back on the airlines (where it should be) you could patronize the airline that provides the screening you feel is minimally needed, and I can choose the airline that I feel comfortable with.

It's a major win-win as you get what you want, I get what I want, and we reduce the impact of government on everyone's lives (which also helps to reduce deficit and debt concerns).

Anonymous said...

Anonymous says:
You don't "voluntarily" submit to the TSA search any more than you "voluntarily" pay your taxes.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
NOBODY would "voluntarily" pay taxes, if they could get away with it. That's why there is a law to compel you to pay taxes. The State needs to do that so that it can run the machinery of the country.

Bob, you aren't being consistent. If you agree that having a punishment for not paying taxes makes it non-voluntary, then how can the airport screening be voluntary when there is also a punishment for not cooperating with that?

You claim that the airport screening is avoidable by not flying, but paying taxes is also avoidable by not earning any income.

You haven't made any case why these situations are different.

Anonymous said...

Bob(not the blogger) said.........
Anonymous says:
I have to give you credit, you are consistent. Frequently wrong…

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You'd like to think so.

Actually just go back and look at your posts to confirm you have been wrong. Wait a minute, my bad, your always right.

Anonymous says:
…but consistent.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
That cuz I'm correct. Being correct on this means I don't have to worry about consistency. It just happens.

Keep thinking that and people will continue shooting your down.

Anonymous says:
The pat-down procedure as put in place last November has yet to be court tested.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
It will be court-supported.

So your a member of SCOTUS now. Good to know.

Anonymous says:
However several of TSA's policies/actions have been and been found to be illegal or at least the recipient has been found in the right.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Please link the cases.

Don't have as much time as you apparently so you'll have to check for yourself, they're out there.

Anonymous says:
You can continue spouting the company line…

Bob [not the blogger] says:
It's not a "company line." It's just a line that's correct.

Your opinion only.

Anonymous says:
… all you want but obviously people are going to continue griping.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
I can't help that they won't listen to reason. Some people just like to gripe.

True, but sometimes only the squeeky wheel gets the grease.

June 2, 2011 3:27 AM

Anonymous said...

I have come to the conclusion that the TSA is just like a car alarm.

Only provides the feeling of security.

Very noisy and very irritating.

Only keeps honest people honest.

Just a facade of security, unless Lojacked then only good for finding the problem later.

Just like a determined thief, a terrorist won't be bothered by the TSA/car alarm he'll find a way to slip/smash right through as needed.

Anonymous said...

Anyone notice that it seems like Bob[not the blogger] keeps getting a lot of posts up quickly while a lot of us have to wait, if they're posted at all?

Things that make you go hmmm.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I hope you are just trying to be inflamatory and don't really think that checking someone's waist band is the same as "reaching down thier pants".

No- "checking someone's waist band" is Not the same as "reaching down thier pants".

Yes- "put[ting] my hands inside your waistband, all the way around" IS 'sticking my hand inside your pants'.

See the difference??

Anonymous said...

States, not the federal government, regulate sexual crimes including illegal sexual groping/molestation. TSA pat-downs would constitute 3rd or 4th degree sex offenses in most states, particularly when the individual says stop and the officer continues as has occurred in several of the YouTubes. You may notice that your officers also believe they cannot be filmed, which is patently false.

V said...

They promised you safety, they promised you security. And all they demand in return is your silent obedient consent. The truth is, there is something very wrong with this country.

MK said...

Dear TSA Blogger Bob,

You claim that the complaints regarding the pat-downs are not extremely high. In fact, in this post you say that they average out to be 0.0004%. It seems to me that you are so bent on going down this path and defending your process that you are not in touch with reality. The majority of people, though disgruntled, will never lodge a formal complaint. The country is clearly upset about these intrusive procedures. Some of the largest Pilot Unions in the Nation have been lobbying against these screening procedures for their pilots. That should clue you in to the fact that even our pilots are not happy with the current procedures. President Obama has said, "There's no other way". There must, there must be another way. Instead of expending so much energy defending these practices please employ some bright, innovative people who can come up with procedures that ensure our safety without sacrificing our liberties.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Respectfully,

MK

Anonymous said...

Nice selective reading of the Constitution, Bob.

How about this one instead? The 4th amendment ( http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html ).

The right of the people (that's us) to be secure in their persons (that means our bodies) against unreasonable searches (what the TSA does) shall not be violated (also what the TSA does), and no warrants shall issue (warrant? we don't need no stinkin' warrnts) but upon probable cause (of which the TSA has none) supported by Oath or affirmation (which rules out the TSA's favorite "you refused the scanner so we have probably cause" defense), particularly describing the places to search and the persons to be seized (which as far as I can tell at the TSA, is "everyone and everything".. hardly "particular")

Not like it matters. The TSA is now a mindless bureaucratic automaton. And as Texas has shown, the will of the people is meaningless at this point, isn't it, Bob?

So if it isn't the people you work for, Bob, who is it?

Earl Pitts said...

Hey Bob, is there a reason why my response to anon that hands were stuck down my pants at BWI when my waist band was checked? The guy nearly touched my pubes.

Anon says it doesn't happen. It happened to me. I want it known. Screenshot taken.

Thanks,

Earl

Anonymous said...

Bob-not the blogger wrote "and see what he says. Then, you gotta decision to make, what be mo' impo'tant to you an' yo' fam'ly."

From your AUP-refer to Federal Civil Service employees by name; contain offensive terms that target specific ethnic or racial groups

Bob-are you going to allow this racial charicature comment?

Anonymous said...

MK said
"Some of the largest Pilot Unions in the Nation have been lobbying against these screening procedures for their pilots. That should clue you in to the fact that even our pilots are not happy with the current procedures."

Pilots think that they are above the screening procedures, so of course they are upset. Ever talk to a pilot about their jobs? They arent the friendliset bunch. Oh and dont forget the flights attendents they want out too. Its a good thing that none of these people have ever been found to have any items that they shouldnt on them like loaded firearms.

Anonymous said...

anon said:
"Anyone notice that it seems like Bob[not the blogger] keeps getting a lot of posts up quickly while a lot of us have to wait, if they're posted at all?

Things that make you go hmmm."

im sorry my tin foil helmet fell off from laughing so hard at this, thanks!

Al Ames said...

@Anon: "
Pilots think that they are above the screening procedures, so of course they are upset. Ever talk to a pilot about their jobs? They arent the friendliset bunch. Oh and dont forget the flights attendents they want out too. Its a good thing that none of these people have ever been found to have any items that they shouldnt on them like loaded firearms."

And gee, many of them are allowed thru the FFDO program.

I've met many nice pilots and FAs in my travels. True, some have egos and are arrogant but I haven't seen any industry that doesn't have that.

It doesn't make much sense to be taking pocket knives and snow globes from the guy who can push the controls to the dashboard and crash the plane at will, does it?

Al

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Anonymous says:
Anyone notice that it seems...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
"Seems" is an operation of the mind. Imaginary. Subjective, not objective. Conjured up. In this case, this "seeming" in your head is coupled with hysterical exaggeration with a wee touch of over-dramatizing. We understand that the critics wanna try to make a case that isn't there, and so, they need to make what they think they have look and sound as though they have something. It's a common trick on the used car lot.

Anonymous says:
...like Bob[not the blogger] keeps getting a lot of posts up quickly…

Bob [not the blogger] says:
My posts are not up any more quickly than anyone else's. I DO have the resources to write posts very quickly and submit them to the moderators. Of course, I won't say what those resources are cuz I enjoy having a certain advantage.

Anonymous says:
…while a lot of us have to wait…

Bob [not the blogger] says:
I have-ta way just as long as anyone else does. I don't mind.

Anonymous says:
… if they're posted at all?

Bob [not the blogger] says:
The blog moderator makes that call, to "pat down" each post by somebody who wants to enter this "secure area." If a person decides to write a post and submitted, he has implied consent to have that post moderated.

Now, I can just imagine the wheels turning in the minds of the critics. They are saying that they have First Amendment Rights, that TSA is shutting them down, hindering their Free Speech.

As I say, the idea is that you choose to submit your posts here, in an area where there is moderation. The signage is above. So, you know ahead of time. If you want your posts not to be moderated, don't submit a post here. It's YOUR choice.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Anonymous says:
States, not the federal government, regulate sexual crimes including illegal sexual groping/molestation. TSA pat-downs would constitute 3rd or 4th degree sex offenses in most states, particularly when the individual says stop and the officer continues as has occurred in several of the YouTubes.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Of course, the TSA pat downs are no more sex offenses than pat downs by police officers. If TSA agents are guilty of sex offenses, so are police officers.

Anonymous says:
You may notice that your officers also believe they cannot be filmed, which is patently false.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
I believe that's probably correct.

However, at the very least, the law prohibits you from recording images on scanners, or other equipment, that may publicize how the equipment works and give terrorists an advantage.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Anonymous says:
The right of the people (that's us) to be secure in their persons (that means our bodies) against unreasonable searches (what the TSA does) shall not be violated (also what the TSA does), and no warrants shall issue (warrant? we don't need no stinkin' warrnts) but upon probable cause (of which the TSA has none) supported by Oath or affirmation (which rules out the TSA's favorite "you refused the scanner so we have probably cause" defense), particularly describing the places to search and the persons to be seized (which as far as I can tell at the TSA, is "everyone and everything".. hardly "particular")

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Notice "unreasonable searches."

If you walk onto the checkpoint, your consent to a search is implied. In fact, according to the signage at airports, as soon as you travel on to the airport property, you are subject to a search; your consent is implied simply by continuing to be on the airport property. That makes the search reasonable. It is based on a reason. There is no violation of the Fourth Amendment where there is consent to a search.

Further, if you alarm, as you walk through onto the checkpoint, that alarm is the probable cause. It is the reason for the search. Again, there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment where there is probable cause – that is, visible, verifiable, objective evidence of probable, illegal activity. Not possible. Not certain. Probable. The alarm is the probability. It's not required that the alarm be CERTAIN evidence. Only probable.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Earl Pitts says:
Hey Bob, is there a reason why my response to anon that hands were stuck down my pants at BWI when my waist band was checked? The guy nearly touched my pubes.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
The agent couldn't have gone that far. The palm of his hand is on the inside of the beltline, and his thumb is on the outside. In order for the agent's hand to go down that far, about one third of his arm would disappear.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
"… and see what he says. Then, you gotta decision to make, what be mo' impo'tant to you an' yo' fam'ly."

Anonymous says:
From your AUP-refer to Federal Civil Service employees by name; contain offensive terms that target specific ethnic or racial groups

Bob [not the blogger] says:
How do YOU know that I was "targeting" anybody?

How do you know that the dialect I portrayed belongs, exclusively, to one, racial group?

And what kind of racism automatically assigns that written dialect to one group?

Anonymous says:
Bob-are you going to allow this racial charicature comment?

Bob [not the blogger] says:
How do YOU know that it's racial, unless YOU are applying a racism to your interpretation??

Jessica said...

"The authorities said the changes, the monitoring, banning and regulations, were for the greater good. But good, isn't the same as right"

Anonymous said...

I see in the blog it says acccording to the U.S. Constituion it is illegal for states to regulate Federal Government. But the Fourth Amendment says government can't search people without warrants. So the TSA is breaking the law.

Anonymous said...

"Bob [not the blogger] says:
The agent couldn't have gone that far. The palm of his hand is on the inside of the beltline, and his thumb is on the outside. In order for the agent's hand to go down that far, about one third of his arm would disappear."

Wrong again, try a little harder. Unless you're one those really old guys who wears their pants up near their armpits.

You're getting good at this.

SSSS for some reason said...

Still wondering why my last several posts, which conform with the posted posting policies, are missing.

Also wondering why Not the Blogger Bob has his posts appearing so quickly when others don't appear at all.

Yes, it sounds jealous and petty, but I do have to wonder at the effectiveness of this supposed Open Dialog with the Public this blog is supposed to be when only those who support the Company Line are heard and those in the dissent are silenced.

Do I have to go back to taking screen captures of every post I make and sending them to the proper authorities?

Bob [not the blogger] said...

It's not necessary for the agent's hand to go inside the pants and down to the "crotchal area" when he can do it from outside the pants.

The agent must check the beltline inside for possible alarm triggers that can be hidden along the beltline.

Nobody went inside anybody's pants and down to his "crotchal area."

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Anonymous says:
...the Fourth Amendment says government can't search people without warrants. So the TSA is breaking the law.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
It is not.

There is no Fourth Amendment violation if the person consents to the search.

When you go onto the airport property, which is owned by the municipality which agrees with the federal government on security in order to get federal money, your consent is implied, given all the signage that tells you to expect a search. Nobody there needs your specific, verbal consent; it is implied by your merely being there.

At the checkpoint, the "warrant," aside from just being there and, thereby, consenting, is the alarm. The alarm, in this case, is the probable cause necessary for the search. The alarm says that there is reason -- the alarm -- to believe something on you MAY be prohibited. It's probable, not certain. Certain is not necessary, only probable.

Anonymous said...

Al Ames said:
"It doesn't make much sense to be taking pocket knives and snow globes from the guy who can push the controls to the dashboard and crash the plane at will, does it?"

with the reinforced cockpit doors if the pilot wanted to go 'rogue' and take down a plane and was allowed to bring a knife he could hold off the others in the cockpit that would try to stop him. no others can get in the cockpit if its locked. giving this person access to weapons isnt a great idea.

Anonymous said...

to all those that say "screenshot saved" what exactly do you do with them? i have often wondered this. do you show them to all the others that save them at some sort of art fair? or do you just get real upset and stare at them for hours?
please provide more info!

Bob [not the blogger] said...

SSSS for some reason says:
… wondering why Not the Blogger Bob has his posts appearing so quickly when others don't appear at all.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
My posts await moderation just like everybody else's posts.

SSSS for some reason says:
Yes, it sounds jealous and petty…

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Gee, ya think?

SSSS for some reason says:
Do I have to go back to taking screen captures of every post I make and sending them to the proper authorities?

Bob [not the blogger] says:
I ran into this technique when I was Checkpoint Security Supervisor pre-TSA.

Passengers and visitors to the concourse sometimes tried to use this technique to try to override my duty under law. Several times, they wanted to see MY supervisor, apparently to try to get HIM to ignore the law. I refused. I told them that I am the supervisor and I am following the law, that I'm not gonna call MY supervisor so that he can ask me why I'm not doing my job.

Here, you try to intimidate the moderator of this blog who has the duty to…well…moderate this blog.

SSSS for some reason said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
"Here, you try to intimidate the moderator of this blog who has the duty to…well…moderate this blog."

It is not an intimidation tactic.

I am simply trying to establish why your Pro-TSA view points are getting priority over my Anti-TSA view points.

And my using screen captures and sending hard copy versions to the next level up are an attempt to have my voice heard by those that need to hear it.

I work as diligently as I can to keep my comments within the posted guidelines so, after moderation, they will become part of the open dialog this particular blog claims as its Raison d'ĂȘtre. Seeing the inconsistent Moderator practices in action do nothing to instill trust and confidence in Blogger Bob, or you Not the Blogger Bob.

ROBERT ZIPP said...

ariftskThe bill has been re-introduced in the Texas senate! The people of Texas threatened the political careers of Dewhurst and Perry:)

Anonymous said...

so for all the people that are upset that bb doesnt respond, please contact your local govt reps (congress people, house of reps, etc) and let us know how quickly you get a response. in this microwave society its amazing how everything has to be done NOW! or its unexceptable. im guessing that your the same ones in line at the airport complaining that its too slow.
bb posts the articles and responds sometimes. does it state somewhere that he is required to answer questions or to just post a topic and create a dialog for the bloggers? im guessing that he cant just shoot out an answer withoug getting some sort of approval from he superiors...

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Here, you try to intimidate the moderator of this blog who has the duty to…well…moderate this blog.

SSSS for some reason says:
It is not an intimidation tactic.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Of course it is. You threaten to go running to the "suits" above him, to try to get them to put pressure on Bob just cuz you don't get your way.

SSSS for some reason says:
I am simply trying to establish why your Pro-TSA view points are getting priority over my Anti-TSA view points.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
My viewpoints are neither pro-, nor anti-. They're just factual.

You phrase it as though it's fact that my posts are getting priority. However, the fact is that my posts – the posts of just one person against the many posts of the critics – are really not getting priority. Maybe YOUR posts have something in them that are causing them to be moderated out.

SSSS for some reason says:
And my using screen captures and sending hard copy versions to the next level up are an attempt to have my voice heard by those that need to hear it.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
"To have my voice heard" is the same kinda phrasing some people tried to use on me when I was a pre-TSA supervisor on the checkpoint, and they wanted me to call my supervisor, so they could influence him to get their way. As I say, I refused to do that cuz I wasn't about to bother my supervisor to do what I'm supposed to do; plus, I wasn't about to listen to my supervisor ask me why I'm not doing my job, when I was.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Anonymous says:
to all those that say "screenshot saved" what exactly do you do with them? i have often wondered this. do you show them to all the others that save them at some sort of art fair? or do you just get real upset and stare at them for hours?
please provide more info!

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Y'know what's gonna happen? Bob's super will come down to Bob and say, "Hey, you! What's THIS about? I don't have time for this!"

Bob will say, "They're stompin' on the floor, thrashin' around, cryin' hysterically and threatening to hold their breath 'til they turn blue cuz they don't like the screening process, and they don't like the way I'm runnin' this blog just cuz they dn't agree with me. So, I had to moderate some-a their posts out on Section-whatever grounds. Besides," Bob will continue, "the vast majority of them are anonymous, and, so, they aren't credible, anyways."

"'K. Sounds good! You got the job. YOU handle it!" the sup will say cuz he has HIS job and Bob has HIS, "I'll just ship further complaints down to you so I can do MY job."

"Okie dokie," Bob will say, and that'll be that.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

ROBERT ZIPP says:
The bill has been re-introduced in the Texas senate! The people of Texas threatened the political careers of Dewhurst and Perry:)

Bob [not the blogger] says:
They were threatened before, and they still realized that it's better to have air service than not.

TSA is correct to say that, if TSA cannot provide security as much as it is possible, there can be no air service to jeopardize the flying public.

Anonymous said...

Bob not the Blogger Wrote"How do you know that the dialect I portrayed belongs, exclusively, to one, racial group?"

So if stereotypical dialect offends more than one group it's ok?

Bob not the blogger wrote"And what kind of racism automatically assigns that written dialect to one group?"

Sure, could be more than one group-Still offensive


Bob [not the blogger] says:
How do YOU know that it's racial, unless YOU are applying a racism to your interpretation??

So by your reasoning, if I feel that your use of stereotyping dialect of my race is offensive, I am racist? To be fair, you didn't see my previous post explaining my problem with your use of dialect because it was "moderated" before this one was posted.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You phrase it as though it's fact that my posts are getting priority. However, the fact is that my posts – the posts of just one person against the many posts of the critics – are really not getting priority.

They certainly are. Your responses are literally minutes after the posts you are replying to (sometimes as long as an hour or two). Meanwhile (and I'm sure others can confirm this), I've seen delays of DAYS before my posts are posted, if at all.

Anonymous said...

I was about to get excited.... 999 posts on this topic. I think this is the highest number of comments of any topic around this place.

But, upon review, only 976 of the comments are active or visible. (Blogger Bob, you really should update your software, or database, or something. Your system is out of sync which is going to make some of your reporting a bit skewed.)

Still, that is more comments on this topic than there have been complaints filed regarding the new Enhanced Pat Downs.

Anonymous said...

"Bob [not the blogger] says:
Y'know what's gonna happen? Bob's super will come down to Bob and say, "Hey, you! What's THIS about? I don't have time for this!"

Bob will say, "They're stompin' on the floor, thrashin' around, cryin' hysterically and threatening to hold their breath 'til they turn blue cuz they don't like the screening process, and they don't like the way I'm runnin' this blog just cuz they dn't agree with me. So, I had to moderate some-a their posts out on Section-whatever grounds. Besides," Bob will continue, "the vast majority of them are anonymous, and, so, they aren't credible, anyways."

"'K. Sounds good! You got the job. YOU handle it!" the sup will say cuz he has HIS job and Bob has HIS, "I'll just ship further complaints down to you so I can do MY job."

"Okie dokie," Bob will say, and that'll be that."

so if i hit the screen shot button my blog goes directly to bob sup?

Anonymous said...

ssss said:
"And my using screen captures and sending hard copy versions to the next level up are an attempt to have my voice heard by those that need to hear it.

I work as diligently as I can to keep my comments within the posted guidelines so, after moderation, they will become part of the open dialog this particular blog claims as its Raison d'ĂȘtre. Seeing the inconsistent Moderator practices in action do nothing to instill trust and confidence in Blogger Bob, or you Not the Blogger Bob."

what address do you use? i'd like to do this as well! please let us know how long it takes to get a response. hopefull the blog will still be around...

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You phrase it as though it's fact that my posts are getting priority. However, the fact is that my posts – the posts of just one person against the many posts of the critics – are really not getting priority.

Anonymous says:
They certainly are.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
And, yet, in your original complaint, you QUESTIONED whether they are.

Now, you say they "certainly" are.

Which is it? Do you suspect they are, or are they?

The fact is that I'm not getting any special treatment. The favor isn't being thrown in my direction. I am one person, and you people are many persons. I think I'm doing a fair job of answering all the critics, and I'm not even getting paid for it. It's possible that Bob, the blogger, thinks that it's a fair balance. Of course, the critics of TSA don't. Neither do the terrorists think I should be here at all. But that's too bad.

Anonymous says:
Your responses are literally minutes after the posts you are replying to (sometimes as long as an hour or two).

Bob [not the blogger] says:
When the moderator is on duty, he may approve posts quickly, or, if he has something else to do, may not. I'm subject to the same moderation you are.

Anonymous says:
Meanwhile (and I'm sure others can confirm this), I've seen delays of DAYS before my posts are posted, if at all.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
I've seen delays of days before MY posts are posted. That's usually on weekends. It's possible Bob, the blogger, has those days off.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] says regarding Texas' pending legislation regarding the TSA:...

if TSA cannot provide security as much as it is possible, there can be no air service to jeopardize the flying public.
~~~
That means Texas gets all the planes! Flights can come into the state, but then not leave.

Then what does the TSA do when all the planes are stuck in Texas and can't leave?

Anonymous said...

Who came up with the idea to create TSA? Who came up with the idea to create the Homeland Security Department? What state does this person live in now? You all have yourselves to blame for this creation of a monster.When the towers fell in New York City, which I saw in person, all everybody could think of is putting something in place fast to protect the nation.They didnt take the time to do it properly.It was a rush job.Now you must live with the results.

Robert F. said...

Blogger Bob I have a question please. Are security agents required to swear an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution? Was John Pistole? was Janet Napolitano?

Anonymous said...

I was given a (non-enhanced) pat down at Port Columbus once. Metal detector hadn't gone off, it was before the full-body scanners, and i didn't really think much of it. I was told by the person patting me down that he was attempting to break a record.

It's always made me wonder, if i can't joke in the TSA line, why could he joke about such a terrible idea to perform a pat down?

MK said...

ANON said:

"Pilots think that they are above the screening procedures, so of course they are upset. Ever talk to a pilot about their jobs? They arent the friendliset bunch. Oh and dont forget the flights attendents they want out too. Its a good thing that none of these people have ever been found to have any items that they shouldnt on them like loaded firearms."

This is a gross generalization and has no merit in regards to the actual point of the argument.

It seems that "anon" wants people searched based upon how friendly they may or may not be.

Original Post by MK: June 3, 2011 9:32 AM
Response Post by Anon: June 3, 2011 6:06 PM

Anonymous said...

Texas should have moved forward and should have let the TSA stop all flights in and out of the state. That would have been a real eye opener. The dollars lost in business travel, pleasure travel and the loss of business at the airports themseleves would have caused the TSA some VERY VERY bad press and the economic pressure would have caused the TSA to act in a way to satisfy the anger that would have stemmed from stopping all flights.

It's a shame Texas wasn't brave enough to do it.

Money and the loss of it is the only way to stop the TSA. Do NOT fly. Let the airlines collapse, let the airports become financial liabilities to their states and municipalities. It won't last long... something would have to change. Economic protest can be very effective.

Anonymous said...

anon said:
"Then what does the TSA do when all the planes are stuck in Texas and can't leave?"

huh? i dont understand? please explain. the tsa will not be in texas and planes cant fly, whether they stay in the state or not. they are not screened therefore they dont fly, anywhere.

Anonymous said...

Viva la Quebec, oops Long Live Texas!

Anonymous said...

It would be nice if all traveling federal government employees, managers and the Congress had to fly commercial--let them go through the government pat downs and the body scans and be humiliated just because they may need to fly...

It would be appropriate if the entire traveling public NEVER stepped foot on an airplane again and drove them all out of business.

Robert Zipp (Texas) said...

Anonymous Said...
Texas should have moved forward and should have let the TSA stop all flights in and out of the state.

Here is a quote the journal from the Texas Legislative session on the 7th:

"The following bills and joint resolutions were today laid before the house, read first time, and referred to committees, and the following resolutions were
today laid before the house and referred to committees. If indicated, the chair today corrected the referral of the following measures:........ HB 41 (By Simpson), Relating to prosecution and punishment for the offense of official oppression by the intrusive touching of persons seeking access
to public buildings and transportation; providing penalties.
To Criminal Jurisprudence."

It's going to committee again! As I type this, I can't help but hum the song, "I'm Just a Bill"...

There is still a chance...

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Bob [not the blogger] says regarding Texas' pending legislation regarding the TSA:...

if TSA cannot provide security as much as it is possible, there can be no air service to jeopardize the flying public.

Anonymous says:
That means Texas gets all the planes! Flights can come into the state, but then not leave.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
They leave empty. Deadhead to another place.

Anonymous says:
Then what does the TSA do when all the planes are stuck in Texas and can't leave?

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Nothing. The pilots can fly them out when company tells them to move the airplanes. Otherwise, they ROD/RON until company decides what to do with them.

SciMjr2 said...

Let's see if this gets posted ...


TO ANON:

One of the key players who helped to draft the TSA law was Congressman Mica of Florida. HOWEVER, his original bill had PRIVATE security firms with TSA and DHS oversight. There are 5 airports that have remained private and perform better than public TSA screeners in tests and evaluations conducted by The Government Accountability Office AND THE TSA ITSELF!

ANY airport has the right to use private firms even though there would still be TSA oversight, however, TSA has attempted to discourage and block attempts by airports to exercise their opt-out and has instituted a moratorium prohibiting the transfer.

Congressman Mica stated:

"In my view, the TSA has become an out-of-control, bloated agency. With 63,000 current screeners and 3,500 high paid administrators in Washington, this agency is more than three times larger than originally authorized and envisioned."

Congressman Mica also stated:

"An Amendment I authored in Homeland Security legislation on June 1 was agreed to by the House, cutting the TSA screener workforce by 10% while saving taxpayers 300 million dollars. Further, in a report I released the next day, I have shown that TSA has continued to cost taxpayers additional money each year, while failing to carry out their objectives. I feel it is time to act to bring some common sense to the process, and you can be assured that I will continue working to right-size this agency and improve our security procedures."

It's pretty bad that, essentially, the Father of the TSA considers it to be his "Little Bastard Child".

Anonymous said...

Bob (not the blogger, not the Constitutional expert and politically naive) said:
"They were threatened before, and they still realized that it's better to have air service than not.

TSA is correct to say that, if TSA cannot provide security as much as it is possible, there can be no air service to jeopardize the flying public."

You really can't be this dense, can you? If you think any administration is going to risk infuriating a large percentage of the population with such a heavy-handed move, I don't know what to tell you.

Plus, aircraft could operate intra-state without federal interference.

Anonymous said...

I experienced the TSA "pat down", or more literally, the touching of my private areas – even after going through the AIT scanner. I felt completely violated. It was a horrible feeling, and I have had sleepless nights over this. I am not alone. This is real, and it's happening.

In the workplace this would constitute a major sexual harassment lawsuit- no matter if in public or a "private room". Travelers are paying too high a price, and this is out of hand. No matter what political party, anyone who feels the same way please write to Secretary Janet Napolitano and President Obama. Our voices need to be heard at the federal level on this important issue.

RB said...

Texas state officials groped by the TSA

Question to TSA during invasive sexual assault pat down:

Are you punishing me?

TSA screener: YES!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKE98sJpGig&feature=player_embedded

Anonymous said...

Mark said:
"To all who say pat downs are illegal, do you really want to fly with someone who might be a terrorist?"

Sure. Reasonable passenger screening will ensure that the "terrorist" would have nothing more than, perhaps, a knife. I'll take my chances.

BTW, I hope you don't ride the subway, a bus or anything similar since the people on such a conveyance are not screened. Do *you* want to "ride" with a terrorist?

"Or what if TSA went the other way, what if the alarm keeps going off and you can't figure out why? Then you probably aren't going to be allowed to board at all. And of course you are going to complain about that too."

Assuming it's a false positive, you'd be justified in complaining or do you think the government can arbitrarily prevent citizens from boarding?

"Quit whining, and get over it! If you want to know about government infringing on your rights go to some place like Iran."

Why would I leave the US - where my rights are Constitutionally protected - to a theocratic dictatorship?

Did you even read what you wrote?

Anonymous said...

SSSS said:
"http://lewrockwell.com/adams-m/adams-m19.1.html

If TSA Agents really are Law Enforcement then why did they call Local Law Enforcement in the linked story?"

This is a settled issue: The TSA is NOT a law enforcement agency. True law enforcement officers are stationed at most (all?) TSA checkpoints precisely to allow a LE response, if necessary.

TSOs totally lack the screening and training required to be LEOs.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"You have obviously never been through a pat down before. A sliding motion with the back of a hand is not a grope."

Then the TSOs have nothing to worry about, do they?

"Those states can try but 1 of 2 things will happen. it passes and the airline will refuse to let you on the plane if you set of the wtmd since you can't get patted down or it doesn't pass because STATES CANT OVER RULE FEDERAL LAW."

Really? What FEDERAL LAW allows government employees to conduct a sexual assault? Assuming TSOs don't commit such assaults, there is no problem. If they do, they'll become acquainted with the Texas judicial system.

Anonymous said...

anon said:
"Money and the loss of it is the only way to stop the TSA. Do NOT fly. Let the airlines collapse, let the airports become financial liabilities to their states and municipalities. It won't last long... something would have to change. Economic protest can be very effective."

in case you havent noticed the airlines are reporting record profits. the airlines, which have recently gotten govt subsides to keep flying, will have no say in tsa matters. if you dont want to be screened then dont fly. its that simple there are millions of other people that will keep in flying.

kellymae81 said...

Anon said: This is because of the threatening response always used by the TSA agent when encountering an irritated passenger "DO YOU WANT TO FLY TODAY". And you call this working with the public, sheesh.

I am a TSO at SDF (Louisville) and I would just like to say that the "Do you want to fly today?" response is not "always" used. As a matter of fact, I have never even once heard it said at my airport and Ive been here almost 5 yrs now. Im not saying that it is not "ever" used, but it is used by those TSO's who are power hungry and choose to do those things that give TSA a bad name. EVERY agency, corporation, etc have bad eggs and its unfortunate but to use the word "always" is horribly incorrect. Ive never used that phrase bc I believe it is very unprofessional. (AND deservingly hated by all passengers) Though you may not want to believe it, its probably about 5% of the entire TSA employees that do these infamous things that everyone tends to focus on and then conclude ALL of TSA is that way. I work with probably some of the nicest people you could ever meet and I honestly dont think I could work at an airport where the employees were how you, as the passenger, perceive us. We are just like anyone else out there who come to work, do what is asked of us and then go home and see our families, have BBQs, hang with our friends, etc...ya know, what normal human beings do, just like you. We arent some mutant species of human that live our lives for patting down people and taking their stuff. If I could, financially that is, go back to being a waitress, I would do that bc I LOVED it. I got to be myself; a bubbly, energetic person, who loves life and loves people and I thrive on that. Trust me, I do my job at TSA but its not where I want to be forever...ITS A JOB, plain and simple. We all have them, and whether you believe it or not, we are people just like you, not villians!! -sorry, got a little carried away ;)

«Oldest ‹Older   801 – 1000 of 1032   Newer› Newest»