Posted on 05/26/2011 11:23:12 AM PDT by ThirdMate
Text of a letter sent to Sen. Patrick, Rep. Simpson, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst:
Dear Sen. Patrick,
I understand from press reports that Federal agents have threatened to impose a "No Fly Zone" over Texas, as has been done in the past and present to rogue states such as Iraq, Libya and Bosnia, and this threat is in response to the exercise of the duly constituted legislative powers of the Texas Legislature.
I am of the opinion that this federal threat is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, as per Article 1, section 9 quoted below.
Article. I. - The Legislative Branch Section 9 - Limits on Congress No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
I am further of the opinion that the regulations or policies imposed by the Secretary of Homeland Security regarding unwarranted searches and seizures of persons boarding aircraft are contrary to the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Accordingly I strongly support your efforts for passage of HB 1937 in defiance of federal threats of a No Fly Zone and air blockade. I further suggest that should the federal authorities make good on their threat, the Texas Railroad Commission should, in the name of safety and security, shut down all interstate pipelines carrying natural gas and refined petroleum products out of Texas.
You have my full support.
Best regards, aka "ThirdMate"
Well, it’s been time for a long time.
But, now would be good.
Excellent!!! My nomination for Post of the Day.
I wish there was a way to “ping” every Freeper! Excellent letter!!! Gonna link it to the Texas board!
Did the feds actually threaten this? Do you have a link? Outrageous if true.
how about toll booths collecting from non-texans coming into the state?
Agreed!!
I’m in full support and stand with Texas!
BTTT
Do a keyword search for tsa or texas. There are several articles up right now.
Anyone who thinks that our individual liberties have not been trampled by the would-be kenyan dictator had better take a close look at this issue.
Here is a link to some good background information on this latest outrage in a long train of abuses and usurpations:
You asked:
“how about toll booths collecting from non-texans coming into the state?”
I say volunteers in the cause of liberty should be admitted without charge!
"Don't Mess With Texas"?
ping
Reason #1 on why I moved to Texas from UpState NY:
Texas and it’s citizens have conjenes.
The audacity of grope
Below are links to the Texas Senate and House, respectively.
Click on a member in the list to find their e-mail address.
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/Members.htm
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/
Yes here is a link that has a copy of the entire letter.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56237206/TSA-Letter-to-Texas-Lawmakers-over-the-groping-bill
Bump!
Thanks Snuph, I am posting the letter from the US Attorney to the Texas Senate in its entirety. The language of the letter deserves careful parsing, and I would hope some legally trained Freepers might comment.
Dear Leaders,
I write with regard to HB 1937, which I understand will imminently be presented to the Texas Senate for a vote.
This office, as well as the Southern, Northern, and Eastern District of Texas United States Attorneys, would like to advise you of the significant legal and practical problems that will be created if the bill becomes law. As you are no doubt aware, the bill makes it a crime for a federal transportation official (”TSO”) to perform the security screening that he or she is authorized and required by federal law to perform. The proposed legislation would make it unlawful for a federal agent such as a TSO to perform certain specified searches for the purpose of granting access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation. That provision would thus criminalize searches that are required under federal regulations in order to ensure the safety of the American public. The legislation also makes it a crime for a public servant, as defined by the bill, to deny or impede another person in the exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege, knowing that the public servant’s conduct is unlawful. As a result, it appears the intent of the bill is to preclude a TSO from turning away from the secure area of an airport someone who otherwise would have been subjected to a pat down as a condition of entry.
The effect of this bill, if enacted, would be to interfere directly with the Transportation Security Administration’s (”TSA”) responsibility for civil aviation security. 49 U.S.C. §114(d); 6 U.S.C. §202(1). Congress has directed the Administrator of TSA to take “necessary actions to improve domestic air transportation security,” 49 U.S.C. §44904(e), and directed him to “prescribe regulations to protect passengers and property on an aircraft ... against an act of criminal violence or aircraft piracy.” ID. §44903(b). Congress has directed TSA to provide for “the screening of all passengers and property ... before boarding,” in order to ensure that no passenger is unlawfully carrying a dangerous weapon, explosive, or other destructive substance. Id. §44901(a), §44901(a), §114(e). If the Administrator determines that “a particular threat cannot be addressed in a way adequate to ensure ... the safety of passengers and crew of a particular flight, he “shall cancel the flight or series of flights.” Id. §44905(b). HB 1937 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. Those officials cannot be put to the choice of risking criminal prosecution or carrying out their federal duties. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Texas has no authority to regulate federal agents and employees in the performance of their federal duties or to pass a statute that conflicts with federal law.
If HR [sic] 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute. Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.
We urge that you consider the ramifications of this bill before casting your vote.
Very truly yours,
[signed]
John E. Murphy
United States Attorney
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.