motorcycle checkpoints - Page 8 : KawiForums.com Kawasaki Forums: Kawasaki motorcycle forums
» Sponsors





» Insurance
Go Back   KawiForums - Kawasaki Motorcycle Forums > Open Discussion > Two Wheeled Discussion
New User? Register - Forgot Password

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-26-2011, 11:22 AM   #71 (permalink)
Intermediate Member
 
BlackDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston, Texas, United States.
Posts: 2,474
BlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep points
Default

In public statement, TSA lies about the Constitution


by Michael Boldin Round two of the battle for travel freedom is well underway.
The first round, which garnered national attention in the fall of 2010, focused primarily on the TSA implementing new procedures…pat downs, body scanners….and the public outcry against it….boycotts, protests, calling congress to demand change.
But, as the public response failed to stop the scanners and searches, round two has moved to state legislatures around the country. Most prominently, Texas, where the state house just passed a bill banning TSA searches without probable cause. Click here to read the Tenth Amendment Center’s report on the bill.
This time, the TSA is on the defensive, and published an official statement about the Texas bill on their blog:
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.
The problem here? The statement is false. Ignorance from the TSA is unlikely, so I’ll call a spade a spade. They’re lying.
The supremacy clause says nothing of the sort. Here’s the full text:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
So, in simple terms, what does the supremacy clause mean? Just what it says. The constitution is supreme. And any federal laws made in line with the constitution is supreme. Nothing more, nothing less.
Notice there’s not one single word in the actual text that says anything about states regulating the federal government as the TSA claims. They’re just making things up as they go.
SUPREMACY CLAUSE EXAMPLES
In the constitution, The federal government is authorized to establish post offices. So if a state tried to establish their own, which would put it into conflict with the federal post office, the supremacy clause would rule that the state was in the wrong.
On the other hand, the first amendment says, in part, that congress shall not make laws restricting free speech. So, if a state law was established to give extra protection to the free speech rights of people in the state, and the federal government tried to restrict that freedom with an agency action, regulation, or law, the Feds would be in the wrong.
Why? Because the federal law restricting free speech would not be “in pursuance of” the constitution. And, as stated above, it’s the constitution, not all federal laws, which are supreme. The only federal laws which are supreme are constitutional ones.
THE 4TH HASN’T BEEN REPEALED
Federal searches, as the 4th amendment makes clear, have certain requirements. Probable cause is one of them. Here’s the text of the 4th:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
There is no wiggle room here. No warrants shall issue. None. The 4th amendment doesn’t offer any exceptions. Period.
INTERPOSITION
So, when the federal government doesn’t follow such straightforward rules, what should be done? In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison explained the role of the states in such a situation. He wrote:
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them. [emphasis added]
So, when the federal government violates your rights by refusing to abide by the limits put on it in the constitution, it’s your state’s duty to stand up and do it instead.
The verdict? Texas is in the right, and more states should join in now. The TSA…not even close.
*******
What’s the next lie that the TSA will tell us? Not sure, but from this one, it might be something just as absurd, like…”the 1st amendment says that states can’t interfere with TSA restrictions on complaints during wartime.”
The kicker here is that under the founders’ vision for the constitution – where the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers delegated to it….and nothing more – the TSA wouldn’t even exist. For an unconstitutional agency to lie about Constitutional matters is beyond absurd, and it must be stopped. Other states are considering bills like in Texas – and sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect at least 10 or more to do so in 2012.
__________________


"Let the Good Times Roll"

BlackDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-26-2011, 12:06 PM   #72 (permalink)
Intermediate Member
 
BlackDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston, Texas, United States.
Posts: 2,474
BlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep points
Default

Legal Abracadabra: Why the TSA’s Sexual Assaults Are "Constitutional"

If you aren’t already convinced that judicial robes cloak the biggest set of fools and tyrants outside Congress, a decision last week from the DC Court of Appeals should finish the job. At issue was the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) carcinogenic porno-scanners at the nation’s airports — contraptions so evil that the TSA has repeatedly, constantly lied about their dangers to both our health and modesty as passengers who submissively shed their shoes and bag their liquids revolt against this final indignity. When the porno-scanners invaded concourses around the country last summer, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) sued the Feds for “screen[ing] airline passengers by using advanced imaging technology [the TSA’s euphemism for ‘porno-scanners’; the agency used to call them ‘whole-body imagers,’ but that apparently contained too much truth and not enough jargon] instead of magnetometers. [EPIC] argue[s] this use of AIT violates various federal statutes and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States…”
Oh, indeed. The Fourth is exceedingly clear about the conditions government must meet before it may search — so clear that even judges can comprehend it. Without “probable cause” and a warrant specifically describing the “place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized,” our right to be free from this insult “shall not be violated…” [Emphasis added. And note that while government may “seize” persons, it may search only “places”: the Founders so feared the power groping bestows that they completely removed our bodies from the equation.]
I’m sure you can guess how the court’s three bozos ruled. Unanimously, no less.
But what else would we expect, given the second half of EPIC’s request: it “argue[d] this use of AIT … should have been the subject of notice-and-comment rulemaking before being adopted.”
Here EPIC references the shadowy but awesomely powerful regime that accounts for almost all the despotism afflicting us: administrative law.
Most Americans despise the hordes of bureaucracies “eat[ing] out our substance,” but they don’t appreciate the extent to which these agencies and the rules by which they impose new legislation on us — “administrative law” — tyrannize the country. This decision affords an outstanding example: exactly 4 paragraphs of its 18 pages discuss and then dispatch the Fourth Amendment; much of the rest explains why, according to administrative law, the TSA may continue pushing us into its patently unconstitutional porno-scanners.
Although a handful of bureaucracies have cursed us from the beginning (the Post Office even received Constitutional blessing), they multiplied faster than rats in the early twentieth century after Congress declared it could “delegate” legislating to bureaucracies. Of course, the Constitution never allows any such arrangement –— but by then, the Progressives spawning the agencies openly mocked the founding document. They derided its “inefficiency” and deliberately consolidated the powers it had so carefully spread among three branches of government: agencies could write a law, enforce it, and judge both it and those accused of violating it.
You need not be intimately familiar with the era’s history to predict that bureaucratic whim, dictatorship, and injustice quickly dominated aspects of life previously off-limits to government. To quiet rebellious Americans, Franklin Roosevelt signed the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). It prescribed a uniform method by which agencies would legislate — though they designate their laws “regulations” the better to fool us. But consistent or not, tyranny is tyranny.
The APA also provided “relief” for folks whom bureaucratic action “harms.” How? The victim appeals to the agency, which determines the justice of his complaint. I haven’t found statistics on the number of times agencies have ruled against themselves, but I’d bet the farm the figure’s lower than a politician’s morals.
There are several other “reliefs” as well, among them an agency’s obligation to solicit the public’s opinion before it issues a new law. Nothing says it has to comply with that opinion, however.
Contrast this with the Constitution’s iron-clad protection from such abuses as the porno-scanner: the government may not under any conditions search “places” without a warrant — and certainly not a human being. But under administrative law, government can proceed as it pleases so long as it seeks the public’s views first.
Indeed, administrative law is nigh magical in its ability to whitewash anything an agency does, no matter how unconstitutional or heartless. For instance, Our Rulers dub the warrantless searches agencies conduct — whether the TSA’s perverts at the airports or the EPA’s charlatans trespassing in a factory — “administrative searches.” This supposedly differentiates them from “criminal” ones and — get this —invalidates the Constitution’s restrictions. That’s because government searches us for our own good, to keep us safe or the environment clean, and the Constitution’s protections would thwart this benevolence. Never mind that the EPA can bankrupt companies with fines mounting into the millions of dollars, or that passengers caught with drugs have gone to jail (in fact, the DC Court of Appeals reminds us that “screening passengers at an airport is an ‘administrative search’ because the primary goal is not to determine whether any passenger has committed a crime but rather to protect the public from a terrorist attack” and refers us to United States v. Aukai. Either the judges didn’t read the case or they’re masters of irony: Daniel Aukai was a passenger imprisoned after the TSA’s goons found his methamphetamine –—and the bench upheld his sentence).
Meanwhile, courts obligingly invent “interests” for the State in safe skies or clean water, then actually, seriously pretend that said interest trumps our rights. And this entire farce depends on two fallacies: that Congress may delegate legislating and that bureaucratic action is sacrosanct so long as the agency claims its wickedness helps it fulfill Congress’ order. The spurious doctrine of delegation is the needle’s eye admitting the camel of totalitarianism.
Like other organizations devoted to “civil liberties,” EPIC comes out of the Progressive tradition that hatched the bureaucratic dynasty: its primary concern is “fair” and “just” government, not freedom from it. And so the TSA’s refusal to request the public’s comments on its porno-scanners before deploying them outrages it.
The Court agreed. It admonished the TSA to beseech those comments — as though we haven’t been screeching them since last fall. And it dismissed the Constitutional objections out of hand; they carry no weight because administrative law supersedes the Fourth Amendment. “Finally, due to the obvious need for the TSA to continue its airport security operations without interruption, we remand the rule to the TSA but do not vacate it”: in other words, while the TSA fulfills the sham of listening to our concerns, it may continue irradiating and ogling us.
Administrative law allowed George W. Bush to foist the TSA on us in the first place, even though “controlling aviation and its passengers” appears nowhere among the Constitution’s enumerated powers. (In 1926, the Feds “delegated” an authority over the industry they didn’t possess via the Air Commerce Act; hence, courts never question the constitutionality of the TSA or the scores of other bureaucracies leeching off aviation. They consider only whether agencies have violated some provision of the APA.) Administrative law has protected the TSA as it molests children and tortures dying grandmothers. And now administrative law permits grown adults in black dresses to contend with perfectly straight faces that governmental pedophilia and sexual assault are Constitutional.
__________________


"Let the Good Times Roll"

BlackDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2011, 03:44 PM   #73 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 995
HpiRally has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsHpiRally has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsHpiRally has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsHpiRally has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsHpiRally has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsHpiRally has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsHpiRally has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsHpiRally has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsHpiRally has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsHpiRally has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsHpiRally has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep points
Default

I dont give a crap about the TSA so I am not reading that wall of text.

joe
HpiRally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2011, 02:05 PM   #74 (permalink)
Intermediate Member
 
BlackDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston, Texas, United States.
Posts: 2,474
BlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep pointsBlackDog has between 10,000 and 20,000 rep points
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HpiRally View Post
I dont give a crap about the TSA so I am not reading that wall of text.

joe

of course not...
it simply explains the concept of- "Administrative Law"


but of course, you KNOW that already
__________________


"Let the Good Times Roll"

BlackDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:25 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Motorcycle News, Videos and Reviews
Honda Grom Forum Harley Davidson Forum Honda 600RR Kawasaki Forum Yamaha R6 Forum Yamaha FZ-09 Forum
1199 Panigale Forum Roadglide Forum Honda CBR1000 Forum Vulcan Forum Yamaha R1 Forum Yamaha R3 Forum
Ducati Monster Forum Harley Forums Honda CBR250R Forum ZX10R Forum Star Raider Forum Yamaha Viking Forum
Suzuki GSXR Forum V-Rod Forums Honda Shadow Forum Kawasaki Motorcycle Forum Star Warrior Forum KTM Duke 390 Forum
SV650 Forum BMW S1000RR Forum Honda Fury Forum Kawasaki Versys Forum Drag Racing Forum Ducati 899 Panigale Forum
Suzuki V-Strom BMW K1600 Triumph Forum Victory Forums Sportbikes BMW NineT Forum
Volusia Forum BMW F800 Forum Triumph 675 Forum MV Agusta Forum HD Street Forum Suzuki GW250 Forum
Yamaha Motorcycles Victory Gunner Forum Honda Vultus Forum