Recently, the TSA – in an effort to improve their awful public image – launched a blog. Yes, the TSA is “reaching out” to all of us – and it’s not to pat us down without a warrant…this time.
According to a post at ThinkProgress.org, it didn’t kick off too well. In fact, so many commenters were hostile, that the blog was “overwhelmed”
The Transportation Security Administration is having trouble with its new blog, which launched on Wednesday. The team of bloggers tried to set a friendly tone by introducing themselves with lines such as: “Hi! My name is Ethel and I’m from Wisconsin. I like music, I love ice cream, and I adore weird facts.†But by mid-day yesterday, comments had already been turned off the original “Welcome†post after “things started to get ugly.â€
Needless to say, I felt this was a good opportunity to discuss the biggest problem with the TSA – the fact that it’s not authorized by the Constitution. So, I decided to write a comment on another of the TSA’s new blog posts:
So, where in the Constitution is the TSA even authorized?
In case anyone’s wondering, it’s not.
The Constitution was written under what’s referred to as “positive grant”
This means, that the federal government is only allowed to exercise those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution.
The 10th Amendment makes it clear that EVERYTHING else is left to “the States, respectively, or to the people”
Thus – everything an unconstitutional agency does is in direct violation of the constitution. (and that includes using your money to run this TSA blog)
Surprisingly, the TSA moderators approved the comment.
The point, though, is what’s most important. Arguments about the TSA’s methods, management, and the like – are a distraction from the true issue – the existence of the TSA is unconstitutional in and of itself.
When a person goes into a checkpoint they are consenting to a pat-down. No warrant required for voluntary submission.
Leroy, what law school did you attend? Where did you learn that voluntary submission is a direct result of illegal, government search and seizure? Before you make another incorrect statement, please check your comments with at least 3 other people. Please.
Thanks for this…
You're damn right it's unconstitutional. The citizens of our beloved country were tricked with the TSA in response to 9/11. Did I EVER vote to allow this search and yes, seizure, of my private property in order to board a plane? No. Did I authorize verbally or in writing this invasion of my privacy and theft of my property (when they confiscate the Pepsi out of my hands or my BIC lighter)? No. What I did do though was pay MONEY to a PRIVATE company to TRANSPORT my wife and I too a destination. I lost colleagues on 9/11 and had to go to NY 3 days after by bus for disaster recovery so I know a thing or two about 9/11 and what is did to us. Enought of this socialist crap of centralized control. Our colleagues, friends, and loved ones that were murdered on 9/11 wouldn't have wanted the United States of America to become a concubine of terrorist threat.
First of all, yes the TSA is ridiculously inappropriate and ineffective in its methodology. That said, the constitutional argument doesn't hold water…the constitution doesn't mention the existence of the Air Force either (given that the concept of air travel/warfare back then was near inconceivable). It also says nothing of the internet / tv / etc. not surprisingly. And again, although I disagree completely with this invasion of privacy, you are exercising your choice to purchase plane tickets with the knowledge that these security measures are in place. Your right to fly is not constitutionally guaranteed. That's why I suggest you do what I will be doing to protest this…don't fly. Vote with your pocketbook.
Your right to fly per se may not be covered constitutionally however you have a right as an American citizen to move and travel freely about your country as long as you can provide proof of citizenship and have demonstrated no reasonable reason or cause for you to be detained. You may argue other wise but I would have to say that being held for refusing the scan and invasive body search is unconstitutional on grounds of illegal search and seizure as well as having provided no due cause for detainment.
I feel I have to add that refusing the scan and search are not in themselves illegal actions and thus do not constitute legal cause for detainment. However in every case I have read of individuals refusing the invasive methods used by the TSA whether simply to protect themselves or their families from what in any other situation would count as a full on sexual assault or to exercise their rights as an American citizen they have been detained for anywhere from 3 to 5 hours and have had threats of ten thousand plus dollar fines hurled at them. By any other government agency such actions would not be tolerated. I would like to send an invitation out everyone to learn your rights. Although the constitution does not specifically out line the precedence for things such as flight, electronic communications or television and radio, the Bill of Rights and Amendments clearly outlines our rights as American citizens in regards to travel, speech, artistic expression, personal expression and reach of the federal government. All of which are things that are clearly being infringed upon and distorted or twisted on a daily basis.
sooooooooooooooo corect not constitutional!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
all who dislike the "TSA" say YES
TSA, big government – eat shit.
TSA is most certainly constitutional. The author of this article is using the Tenth Amendment in the same manner in which Chief Justice Roger B. Taney used it, to mean that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states respectively. The amendment has been used by Taney as evidence in cases such as Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1853), where Taney embraced the concept of dual federalism to give states more authority when it comes to the grey area of federal versus state jurisdiction. Cases that interpret the Tenth Amendment in this manner solely distract the precedents set in cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), in which the great Chief Justice John Marshall essentially concluded that the only limit on the rights of the federal government were the Constitution and the imagination of Congress. While the argument between federal and states' rights during the pre-Civil War area can be debated to a great extent, the debate does not have much legal standing today. States cannot even begin to compete with the federal government as the federal government is much stronger and more influential, as the United States has become more of a unified nation, rather than a confederacy of states. If the case questioning the ability of Congress to create the TSA was ever granted certiorari by the Supreme Court, the Justices would most likely rule on the side of the federal government, using the precedents set by Chief Justice Marshall.
and why should I care about what some politically-connected, unaccountable lawyers who make up the federal court think about federal power?