- - - Doing right is even harder than it looks....
Texas House votes 138 to 0 to criminalize TSA actions. The Texas Senate then voted 30 to 1
to affirm the criminalization of the TSA. Texans are tired of being irradiated and groped just
to fly on a plane. This occurred while thousands of Texans occupied the huge capitol building and the grounds. (The Texas capitol building dwarfs other state capitol buildings and even the National Capitol building.) Texas law enforcement seemed to favor the criminalization of the TSA. The Fed's threatened to ground every aircraft in the state. That would be a defacto
blockade much stronger than the action which started the American Civil War in 1861.
The Lieutenant Governor attempted to diffuse the situation by refusing to recognize the action.
Ironically, the Lt. Governor appeared to use powers given to the Lieutenant Governor after the Civil War in order that the Texas state government could circumvent the onerous restrictions imposed after the last war. The Lieutenant Governor in some operational matters has powers unique to the Lone Star State.
The Texas law makers dropped the anti-groping Bill after being threatened with a no-fly zone. (For those that do not know: A no-fly zone means you bomb the hell out of any possible threat on the ground and
disable any aircraft on the ground while shooting down any aircraft that become air born.)
Who is in charge here, anyway?
The question remains as to whether American military pilots would have fired on American civilian air craft. Texas pilots would have risen to the occasion if the Bill had become Texas law.
The Lt. Governor appeared to use those powers to forestall the federal/state conflict that would have surely ensued.
Full Text of DOJ letter to Texas lawmakers:
May 24, 2011
[On U.S. Department of Justice, Western District of Texas, stationery. Addressed to Speaker Joe Straus, Dewhurst, the House Clerk and the Senate Secretary]
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,
Texas House votes 138 to 0 to criminalize TSA actions. The Texas Senate then voted 30 to 1
to affirm the criminalization of the TSA. Texans are tired of being irradiated and groped just
to fly on a plane. This occurred while thousands of Texans occupied the huge capitol building and the grounds. (The Texas capitol building dwarfs other state capitol buildings and even the National Capitol building.) Texas law enforcement seemed to favor the criminalization of the TSA. The Fed's threatened to ground every aircraft in the state. That would be a defacto
blockade much stronger than the action which started the American Civil War in 1861.
The Lieutenant Governor attempted to diffuse the situation by refusing to recognize the action.
Ironically, the Lt. Governor appeared to use powers given to the Lieutenant Governor after the Civil War in order that the Texas state government could circumvent the onerous restrictions imposed after the last war. The Lieutenant Governor in some operational matters has powers unique to the Lone Star State.
The Texas law makers dropped the anti-groping Bill after being threatened with a no-fly zone. (For those that do not know: A no-fly zone means you bomb the hell out of any possible threat on the ground and
disable any aircraft on the ground while shooting down any aircraft that become air born.)
Who is in charge here, anyway?
The question remains as to whether American military pilots would have fired on American civilian air craft. Texas pilots would have risen to the occasion if the Bill had become Texas law.
The Lt. Governor appeared to use those powers to forestall the federal/state conflict that would have surely ensued.
Full Text of DOJ letter to Texas lawmakers:
May 24, 2011
[On U.S. Department of Justice, Western District of Texas, stationery. Addressed to Speaker Joe Straus, Dewhurst, the House Clerk and the Senate Secretary]
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,
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment: