T.S.A. Expands Duties Beyond Airport Security

New York Times ^ | 08/06/2013 | RON NIXON

[Dick Bachert]

TSA troopers like these will soon arrive in YOUR town/neighborhood to assure your complete safety.

[justlurking]

They don’t have jurisdiction. Without a warrant, they aren’t searching me.

If they persist, my lawyer will have them for lunch.

[veracious]

There _is_ no Federal police power. This is/was well established until what? changed it?

Barely one person on even FR knows this or mentions it...

[OneWingedShark]

>>Tell that to GONZALES v. RAICH, which said: even if there is no interstate market, the federal government can still regulate intrastate commerce because if there was a market, they could regulate that.
>
> There is no possibility of an interstate market on a commuter train that doesn't go anywhere close to a state line.

You know that, I know that, everyone knows that.
And yet it is still the legal reasoning that they give.

>> Despite the logical nullity, this is the reasoning that they use.
>
> I have long dispensed with the bogus rationales of the black robes as regards the plain interpretation of constitutionality.

I have thought, for a while now, that they should be made to live with the consequences of their decisions. Remember Kelo, well, what if we had all the local county guys seize all the Justices's private property under made up numbers (projections) that this would increase levied tax by some amount. The suspension of Habeus Corpus and indefinite detention [without charges] is legitimate? Well lock the justices up in barren rooms with only food and water and a private tasked to retrieve for them writing utensils and law books. — then see how long it takes them to reverse their decisions.

Seriously, some of the problems we face can be eradicated quickly by making the elite ruling class live by the rules they impose.

[appalachian_dweller]

>> These wannabees are conducting roadblocks. <<

Do you know where these roadblocks are happening?

[Carry_Okie]

Remember Kelo, well, what if we had all the local county guys seize all the Justices's private property under made up numbers (projections) that this would increase levied tax by some amount.

By Tenth Amendment standards, Kelo was correctly decided, even though the New London assertion of an eminent domain taking was itself an abomination. The result was that some states instituted MORE stringent property rights protections than the Fifth Amendment offers, while others continue on the corrupt path to ruin. The result of the ruling is that Natural Law will assure the outcome, which is a wise course in most instances of offering the temptation to centralize enforcement powers.

...well, what if we had all the local county guys seize all the Justices's private property under made up numbers (projections) that this would increase levied tax by some amount.

It's analogous to knowing where the police and bureaucrats keep their houses.

Seriously, some of the problems we face can be eradicated quickly by making the "elite ruling class" live by the rules they impose.

No argument there.

[OneWingedShark]

By Tenth Amendment standards, Kelo was correctly decided, even though the New London assertion of an eminent domain taking was itself an abomination. The result was that some states instituted MORE stringent property rights protections than the Fifth Amendment offers, while others continue on the corrupt path to ruin. The result of the ruling is that Natural Law will assure the outcome, which is a wise course in most instances of offering the temptation to centralize enforcement powers.

Disagreed very much; the use of eminent domain in the fifth says that it's for public use — handing over the seized property to a private development company for commercial [IIRC] development is not public use.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: If they persist, my lawyer will have them for lunch.

You’ll be suing the government. How much money and time do you have?

[3boysdad]

Thank you very f’ing much Geo W Bush.

[Timber Rattler]

T.S.A. officials respond that the random searches are “special needs” or “administrative searches” that are exempt from probable cause because they further the government’s need to prevent terrorist attacks.

Bulls#$t!

[Carry_Okie]

Disagreed very much; the use of eminent domain in the fifth says that it's "for public use" —

Only if you incorporate the Fifth Amendment under the 14th.

There is a long history of precedent of eminent domain takings for private benefit by the states going back to the early days of railroads and barge companies. In fact, Abraham Lincoln made his political name by rigging such deals, a corporate RINO from the get-go if you will.

So, yes the taking by New London for a private entity was an abomination. As to whether it should fall under the purvey of the Federal government to enforce the Fifth Amendment against the states, please consider this article. I am not sure you have considered the unintended consequences of such a preference.

[OneWingedShark]

So, yes the taking by New London for a private entity was an abomination. As to whether it should fall under the purvey of the Federal government to enforce the Fifth Amendment against the states, please consider this article. I am not sure you have considered the unintended consequences of such a preference.

Incorporation is another disaster. But I was arguing it on even their [the court's] own terms. As it is I really dislike incorporation: where else can we take the bill of rights, apply magic, and get something that utterly binds the States to the will of the Federal government?

The best, and most obvious, example is the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The restriction is placed on Congress, not the legislature, so applying the text as-is would do nothing to the States as they don't have a congress. So in order for the First Amendment to have any impact on the States it has to be altered in some way. How does this happen? Magic!
(Or, I suppose, a judge with a hat and some magic stones could do it.)

[Carry_Okie]

But I was arguing it on even their [the court's] own terms.

Please make that clear; else you waste our time. Kelo was correctly decided. I still think you'd profit by the article, but then, I wrote it.

[dragnet2]

Any morons out here that didn’t see this coming?

Who started this giant bloated, costly new government program/department

Who oversaw and helped create this TSA monstrosity?

Bush again!

[cherokee1]

Rodeos? If there is one bunch of folks who can take care of themselves it’s cowboys. Don’t show up at a rodeo wearing a burka or asshat.

[VerySadAmerican]

Just curious. Were there any white “agents” in attendance?

[OldArmy52]

And soon the TSA will be at Miss America and other beauty contests....

[B4Ranch]

Have you forgotten the Patriot Act? Bush gave up most of your rights for you when he signed that treasonous piece of paper.

I don’t know but I suspect that if you read the small print you’ll find that when you purchase a ticket to ride on public transportation you are also agreeing to meekly obey the commands of their security officers.

[af_vet_rr]

More security theater to enforce the Obama Doctrine: Every citizen, a potential terrorist; every terrorist, a potential higher breed of citizen.

Don't forget the Republicans that enabled this under the Bush administration. It would easier to deal with this if this just a liberal/Democrat thing, but it's not.

[rdcbn]

Gotta make sure we are protecting against creepy cracker domestic terrorists who are clinging to their bibles and guns.