Sen. Rand Paul acts like an idiot

[crimresearch]

You'd have to be some kind of wingnut to not want your junk fondled by brownshirts.

So you are saying that it is better to take a chance on having your junk fondled by some deputy on the highway?

;-}

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

He was 'taken to a cubicle' according to the TSA.

Don't know how accurate that is, but if he didn't want to go to a cubicle, then that was an arrest when done by government employees with badges and uniforms, according to the Supremes.

Yep, I agree it was an arrest for purposes of the law.

But again, Paul could have defused the situation by doing what everyone else does and complying with TSA requests.

FWIW, to answer Molinaro's post: with Congress people going to or from anything connected with their duties in office, traveling without being arrested actually is a kind of right. (See Crimresearch's posts on the Constitutional issue.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Please stop it with the fake legal expertise, you have no clue what you are talking about. The words in the Constitution cannot be changed by 'case law', which is what you claimed. Nor can they be changed by your fantasy interpretations based on ignorance.

Now you're beginning to sound like Robert Prey. The judiciary actually does have final say in interpreting the Constitution.

And your new assertion that setting off a malfuntioning scanner is a felony makes you look even more inept.

I made no such assertion.

I said that his refusing to a pat down after the scanner alarm went off is arguably probable cause that a felony may committed. I went on to say that if that ever went to court, Paul would win it (unless of course he were in fact carrying a gun).

ETA: And I have made it very clear that my position is that the detention probably was illegal AND that Paul acted like a jerk. So please don't pretend my position is in any way unclear.

You are starting with broad assumptions, and attempting to use 'logic' to debate your way back to being correct.

I don't know what assertions you think you're arguing against, but they are not assertions that I have made. I suggest you re-read my posts more carefully.

 

[Minoosh]

I am some curious what you mean about the why.

You didn't expressly say the reason you didn't fly was because of the TSA so I wondered if there was a causal connection.

Time and money permitting I love to visit other countries and I wouldn't let the TSA stop me. Traveling in the U.S. I'd still rather fly than drive cross country. Airport security is just part of the procedure. Plus I love to look at stuff from the air. And it saves time, etc.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So - as Paul was not on his way to or returning from a session of Congress,

Wasn't he? I thought this was part of his normal commute?

 

[fuelair]

So you'd rather drive 18 hours than fly all because of the TSA? Really?

More like 12 normally, but yes - I do not handle acts of stupidity well. And the TSA reacts to people having bad responces to their stupidity badly. Just not a good match.

 

[crimresearch]

Now you're beginning to sound like Robert Prey. The judiciary actually does have final say in interpreting the Constitution.



I made no such assertion.

I said that his refusing to a pat down after the scanner alarm went off is arguably probable cause that a felony may committed. I went on to say that if that ever went to court, Paul would win it (unless of course he were in fact carrying a gun).

ETA: And I have made it very clear that my position is that the detention probably was illegal AND that Paul acted like a jerk. So please don't pretend my position is in any way unclear.



I don't know what assertions you think you're arguing against, but they are not assertions that I have made. I suggest you re-read my posts more carefully.

And I suggest you quit making up things and then playing games to wriggle out of them.

The discussion is not about 'interpretations', or juries or any of your other strawmen, it is about your claim that 'case law' could edit the Constitution, as in 'carving out exceptions' to Art. 1 sec 6.

If you would actuallly study the law instead of playing games, you would know how ridiculous that assertion was. Only amendments can edit the Constitution, case law must follow it.

 

[crimresearch]

The *felony* of "refusing to obey a TSA officer"?


Really? Really?? Seriously???

 

[sarge]

Wasn't he? I thought this was part of his normal commute?

Normal commute to DC, probably. Normal commute to the chambers of the Senate, probably not.

It is not enough to be on the way back to DC, or even on the way back to Senate Offices. The protection exists only so long as a Member of Congress is on the way to, at, or coming from a session of Congress. That was the original intent. As I (and wiki, for what that's worth) read it, a member of Congress ( and his staff) is protected from arrest while going to and from sessions unless he is suspected of having committed a felony or treason, and is protected from civil or criminal actions stemming from speeches or debates while in session.

While refusing to obey the illegal orders of the TSA would not constitute a felony, I believe the orders of the TSA to have been legal in this case, and Paul's refusal to obey is at least technically a felony and immediately stripped hi ofnthe protections (that he didn't have because he was not heading to a Session of Congress).

 

[crimresearch]

Normal commute to DC, probably. Normal commute to the chambers of the Senate, probably not.

It is not enough to be on the way back to DC, or even on the way back to Senate Offices. The protection exists only so long as a Member of Congress is on the way to, at, or coming from a session of Congress. That was the original intent. As I (and wiki, for what that's worth) read it, a member of Congress ( and his staff) is protected from arrest while going to and from sessions unless he is suspected of having committed a felony or treason, and is protected from civil or criminal actions stemming from speeches or debates while in session.

While refusing to obey the illegal orders of the TSA would not constitute a felony, I believe the orders of the TSA to have been legal in this case, and Paul's refusal to obey is at least technically a felony and immediately stripped hi ofnthe protections (that he didn't have because he was not heading to a Session of Congress).

Please, go ahead and cite the federal felony statute that uses those words.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I cannot find any case law testing this (bows three times towards Toronto) but when the Constitution was written there was a real danger of one state preventing the representatives of another state from passing through and keeping them from doing their duties. I don't think that they meant it to only mean that you cannot stop them from going from their office to the house/senate chambers.

I also don't think that if the *felony* committed was refusing to be stopped from doing their duties that the charge (and any related charge that followed) would hold any water at all.

 

[Travis]

I love the people that say TSA does nothing as if they have access to the alternate universe where the skies are still wild free anarchy to use as a point of comparison.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And I suggest you quit making up things and then playing games to wriggle out of them.

Go back and read my first post in this thread. I have consistently held that position.

I think the TSA detaining him was probably illegal, and I think Rand Paul acted like a jerk (and there are political reasons why he shouldn't invoke his immunity).

I don't think the illegal detention case is as cut-and-dried as you think, but I also doubt very much Paul will assert it to try to hold the agents involved accountable.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The *felony* of "refusing to obey a TSA officer"?


Really? Really?? Seriously???

No. Not really. In fact, not at all.

I don't think anyone has asserted that refusing to obey a TSA officer is a felony. You can continue arguing against that straw man if you like, but I've made it clear a couple of times that I am saying no such a thing. [ETA: My apologies--I just read where sarge alleged that the refusal itself might be a felony. But I clearly said no such thing.]

Trying to carry a gun onto an airplane is a felony. I said that one could argue that triggering the scanner alarm and then refusing a pat down might be probable cause that a felony was being committed. (The felony in question would be trying to get a gun past airport security.)

As I said, I don't think that argument would stand up if it were made in court (unless of course it turned out that he was trying to get a gun past security).

 

[sarge]

Please, go ahead and cite the federal felony statute that uses those words.

I have no such burden.

The words of the Constitution are clear...... Senators are free from arrest when actually in a session, and when going to and from a session ; (that's a semi-colon) Senators may be questioned about comments made within the Senate at no place except the Senate.

So - show a court case that contradicts the plain language of the constitution, or show a court case that has interpreted "at a session" to mean "at some place other than a session". If you cannot, then it is not at all clear that the original intent of this portion of the Constitution was to protect members of Congress from ever being detained. Indeed, it seems far more likely that the framers meant exactly what they wrote - free from arrest when they are going to, attending, or comming from a session.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have no such burden.

The words of the Constitution are clear...... Senators are free from arrest when actually in a session, and when going to and from a session ; (that's a semi-colon) Senators may be questioned about comments made within the Senate at no place except the Senate.

No, he's asking about the assertion that refusing to submit to a pat down is itself a felony:

<snip> I believe the orders of the TSA to have been legal in this case, and Paul's refusal to obey is at least technically a felony <snip>

 

[mhaze]

To you or I, yes, but not to suicidal fanatics. There have been two attempts to blow airliners out of the sky that failed because the bombs did not work, not because of any security stopping them.

BECAUSE the screening is universal and random and how it works is known exactly, clever people can find ways around it. It is too regular.

I can think of several ways to get things through, but I will not discuss them in an open forum.

Exactly and not only that...

But I can think of several ways to scan people that would work and be effective, but I will not discuss them in an open forum.

Going in the opposite direction, why exactly do we not allow guns on airliners? There will never again be an airline hijacking post 9/11.....

 

[Travis]

Considering the way people get drunk and freak out I'm not sure I want guns readily available in a pressurized fuselage.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Considering the way people get drunk and freak out I'm not sure I want guns readily available in a pressurized fuselage.

Not to mention concerns of hitting hydraulic or electrical lines in the plane.

OTOH, I remember when people routinely smoked cigarettes on airplanes!

Also, why rule out terrorism? Firearms were certainly the preferred way to hijack a plane in the old days (like the '70s). If nothing else a gun would be a great way to hide an explosive device.

 

[sarge]

No, he's asking about the assertion that refusing to submit to a pat down is itself a felony:

Ah. That makes more sense.

Before I do the research, I'll need to know that it actually matters whether or not committing a felony is relevent. Again, if Paul was not in a session or going to or from a session, he has no protection from arrest. If willfully disobeying a law enforcement official is a felony, then it would not matter if he was going to a session. If he was committing treason (he was not, obviously), then it wouldn't matter if he was going to a session or committing a felony. So, first, I'd like him to demonstrate that either:

1. Paul was going to a session

Or

2. Some court has ruled that "attending a session" is met by simply heading back to DC.