Rand Paul Detained For Refusing TSA Patdown

HEAR HEAR!

Yeah, right. Let them abolish the TSA and see just how many people would continue to fly on any US owned air transportation. Foreign companies would get ALL the business because they would Continue to inspect passengers and luggage. So, if you would really want to Destroy the airline industry in the US then just try it.

How did the airlines get along before the Travel Supression Agency (TSA)?

BRAVO!

I don't agree at all, in fact, I HATE flying now that I have to be subjected either to x-rays or to someone's hands that have no right to put them on me. Do I feel safer flying now than 10 years ago? HELL NO, you cannot tell me that there aren't more ways that are out there in the hands of weird hateful people that would be easy to slip by the TSA scans and patdowns. What 9/11 achieved was EXACTLY what has been achieved, the ability of our government to take away even more rights to privacy and freedom with no guarantee of "SAFETY"...if you don't agree, just ask any US airline to give you a written guarantee that you'll arrive safely to your destination..get ready for the laughter...because we allowed the TSA TRAVESTY to occur, our children are now being subjected to being 'handled' by strangers, being taught that authority has some right to 'detain' them...just watch some of the TSA videos and tell me that this isn't intimidation in the worst possible way. Because of the TSA DEBAUCLE and not enough resistance to it, we are now faced with NDAA, where have all our rights gone to? Where are your rights, what will you do when the authorities can arrest and detain you indefinitely without proof of any guilt? TSA was just a stageing point for more injustices to come.

You are correct, even our own CIA & FBI didn't CHOOSE to interfere when they knew it was coming...a mistake??? just my personal opinion, but I don't think so..fundraiser??? Judge for yourself...follow the money...

metal detectors aren't exactly invasive are they??? If they were in use on the planes for the 9/11 event, why weren't the guns found?

No one is saying we should have no Airport security, but I do not want some PERVERT sticking her hands down my Daughters pants every time she boards a plane either!

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.

Thomas Jefferson

I do agree Mostly that we have lost Too many rights to fear and that the TSA rules have gone Too far but I also would Not agree to Eliminating the TSA. I would however like to eliminate Dept. of Homeland Security and ALL it's powers.

Actually I was responding to Maasanova who IS advocating completely Eliminating the TSA.

Yes, I agree that the government has gone WAY Too Far with Many things but I still do not agree with completely Eliminating the TSA, but I would like to see it "throttled back" so to speak. A little common sense would help. As far as the Shrub using terror levels to scare people to help him get Actually Elected I completely agree with that.

Clarification to above statement about the Shrub: I agree that he did do that, not that I agree with what he did. ;-)

So it's OK as long as they do it to someone who's political views are different from yours.

No, it is not, if it is against the Constitution of The United States to do it to anyone. Would it be OK that someone gets raped as long as everyone gets raped?

Ain't that the truth! Love to see people who railed against the TSA mere months ago, now applaud it because they did it to a Republican. Hypocrisy reigns.

Yes, the key word is "hypocrisy".

Ha! Sorry. Really need spell check on Current.

No problem, JohnA. I know what you meant, but thanks for the thought.

Most importantly, I was very pleased to see you point out the outright hypocrisy in this whole scenario.

Hi, John A-- just noticing that you were voted down for
mentioning "spell check". What a sorry turn of events.
Who in the world but a mean-spirited, spite poster
would vote down something so neutral!

Mr. Diamonds: I see that you had a
spite-poster voting you down, too, for simply
agreeing with JohnA, who posted a neutral comment.
I'm shocked. In my country of origin (Japan), we do
not play these kind of mean-spirited cyber games.
Our lives center around mutual social respect.
That's why we're often chided for trying to out-do
each other in our shows of humility by bowing
lower and lower repeatedly. I take it that there's
no one else on here from Japan! Oh, well. Sayonara.

Maybe I have a bad reputation. Or it could be a Current staff member that doesn't want to add anything. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, in any case. Thanks for noticing though, I appreciate it. If I misspell anything else, which is likely, please give me pass.

Thank you, Kabuki_Liberal, for your concern. Yes, I am aware the on-going spiteful down-voting on quite a number of my comments. It *is* unfortunate, but I try not let it upset me in any way; it upsets me more when it happens to other members, who didn't deserve it.

From the way you described incredible moments of "not playing these mean-spirited cyber games", I do admire the way things are done in Japan, and I can only hope others will learn to be kinder in the future here on Current, too.

Appreciate you sharing this with us.

You're a cool dude, JohnA.
Best to you, and I won't spell check you if
you don't spell check me, OK? ;-)

I bow humbly from the waist (which means
lots of respect).

I get voted down all the time for expressing my opinion. This is life on Current, so I guess we just suck it up and keep on moving!

It's a deal.

What a hateful comment for a cat.

I like Massanova, but that was funny! :-)

Touche

On a side note I vowed to change my avatar this year haha

Oceans and other large bodies of water kinda get into the way of trains, particularly when traveling overseas.

delete

I hope they are least thinking about building over oceans. That would be awesome! I would pay some money for that.

Ships with high speed rail cars in them!!!

The White House is sworn to uphold the law, not cater to overpriveldged whiners who expect favoritism and are arrogant enough to think they should NOT have to do what all other citizens are required to do. Score another one for team Obama and another foul for team Paul.

You just took the words out of my mouth, thanks!

Interesting comment as the law (the Constitution) requires that no traveling member of Congress be "questioned" while on their way to Washington.

I'm more concerned about the score against the Constitution than whether my team won or not. The Constitution is not a football.

It is 100% true. I will post the relevant section for you. Please tell me which part of what I said is untrue or please take back your assertion.

Section 6: Clause 1 of US Constitution: The Senators and Representatives... They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, "BE PRIVILEGED" from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

It does Not grant them the right to ignore rules on transportation provided by someone to them, (Air Travel). If he were going to DC in his Buggy or on his horse Then he could not legally be stopped. Again, the rules of transportation provided by someone else is NOT covered and Nobody has an Obligation to provide said transportation.

The words in question do not refer to the mode of travel or who is providing the travel. The Constitution trumps TSA "rules."

Actually, because the Constitution does not refer to rules of transportation 'provided' by someone else the Constitution does Not apply. He can find some other way there if he does not want to follow the rules.

I will have to disagree with you on this one.

The Constitution absolutely applies and here is how. There are two operative verbs in the clause in question "arrest" and "question". Clearly he was not arrested, so that one does not apply. He was however questioned and whether we agree or disagree with him as a politician, the Constitution clearly states he is not to be interfered with while traveling to or from Washington to conduct the people's business as an elected representative of said people.

Again, the rules that TSA came up with do not trump the words our founders enshrined in the Constitution.

He wasn't. The rest of the phrase is where we find what happened "and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." Unless you maintain that he was not asked any questions by TSA, then no matter how reprehensible one finds his position his Constitutional rights were violated.

It doesn't end with the arrest part, read below.

And I disagree. If he was traveling on his own, (Buggy or Horse), then I would have to agree but since he is trying to use transportation provided by someone else then the Constitution does Not apply. But to truly decide this issue there would have to be a law suite because it is not Specifically mentioned in the Constitution about transportation provided by someone else, which is why we have courts.

Correct.

An interesting line of reasoning. That line is not spelled out in the document itself, but perhaps it is what the founders were thinking? I will look into that.

Strictly applying Section 6: Clause 1 of US Constitution, do you REALLY believe the TSA had the legal authority to detain Senator Paul on his way to the capital?

I totally agree with you.

a pat down is not an arrest...and an arrest is what cannot take place to a member of congress when it is in session

It has been a minute since I was in Law School, but correct me if I am wrong as I recall arrests and detentions are both “seizures” under the Fourth Amendment. "I" believe Dr. Paul has a valid argument under Section 6: Clause 1.

See my reply to IraqiBALB0A:

again a pat down in neither an arrest or detention, it is no more of a delay than placing your bags in a container to have them run through the xray devise...if he wishes to create a delay by choosing to argue with the TSA then that is on him, he could have been quickly patted down and been on his way....but I admire your attempt to inflate this into some constitutional crisis, it is consistent with your parties tactics.

Arrest or detention?

It also refers to the permitted locations of questioning.

Yes it does. Please look at the last line:

Section 6: Clause 1 of US Constitution: The Senators and Representatives... They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, "BE PRIVILEGED" from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

The clause is not referring to town halls.

The clause does not mention law enforcement. And of course the TSA did not arrest him, but if we take your reasoning then TSA would certainly be an extension of law enforcement and they were certainly questioning him.

Love your moniker/scree name.

They seized his person. I think even the TSA now admits he was BRIEFLY detained. I mean what did Barney Fife think the Senator was trying to smuggle explosives in his knee caps? It is not the Constitution we are discussing, but the actions of the TSA.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

I will assume you did not attend Law School? When it says " they shall not be questioned in any other Place." What place do you think the Founders meant?

Don't think the TSA might have had a chip on their shoulder. do you?

The TSA officers are just working stiffs like the rest of us working class...and like most of us working class people when some arrogant SOB tries to exempt themselves from the rules that everyone has to abide by, we tend to get irritated....Chip on their shoulder, probably not, but really didn't want to be his doormat either.

Would it be to much to ask them to follow the Constitution? Article One, Section 6, Clause 1, look it up. And he said afterward he did not ask for or want any special treatment.

well actually he did, he said he wanted to go through the scanner again...that is not how it works John, you don't get to choose how you are screened..sorry but this has nothing to do with the constitution and everything to do with a guy pushing the envelope to draw attention to himself and his agenda

Actually, it does:

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

United States Constitution, Article One, Section 6, Clause 1