Are US Air Marshalls un-Constitutional?

[bucs90]

Title asks the simple question. I anticipate a fun answer. Would an armed civilian law enforcement officer, a US Air Marshall, flying on a plane from Kansas City to Atlanta be allowed under the US Constitution?

 

[bucs90]

Guess not

 

[g5000]

Why not?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Title asks the simple question. I anticipate a fun answer. Would an armed civilian law enforcement officer, a US Air Marshall, flying on a plane from Kansas City to Atlanta be allowed under the US Constitution?

Interstate trade is the sole authority of the US Government. Both protecting it and regulating it. Armed law enforcement aboard interstate trade is not only covered it is a requirement if there is a threat, Same with international flights.

 

[martybegan]

Guess not

Waiting only 13 minutes for a response, and then implying that no one has an adequate response is poor form.

The better question is what part of the consitution would ban federal air marshalls.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Guess not

Waiting only 13 minutes for a response, and then implying that no one has an adequate response is poor form.

The better question is what part of the consitution would ban federal air marshalls.

Well in this case they are covered. But US Marshals in side the States is a problem unless very specific things are all they cover. The Constitution does not give much police Power to the Federal Government.

 

[bucs90]

What about the Border Patrol, FBI, DEA? Or Marshalls on flights that never cross a state border (Like San Fran to LA, or Miami to Jacksonville)

 

[martybegan]

Guess not

Waiting only 13 minutes for a response, and then implying that no one has an adequate response is poor form.

The better question is what part of the consitution would ban federal air marshalls.

Well in this case they are covered. But US Marshals in side the States is a problem unless very specific things are all they cover. The Constitution does not give much police Power to the Federal Government.

The constitution does not ban states from delegating law enforcement tasks to the feds willingly.

To make a consitutional issue occur a state would have to sue the feds to stop marshalls from being on planes on soley in state flights.

 

[martybegan]

What about the Border Patrol, FBI, DEA? Or Marshalls on flights that never cross a state border (Like San Fran to LA, or Miami to Jacksonville)

The constitution does not ban the states from allowing federal agencies authority over certain areas.

As before, I think it would take a state saying "get out" to a federal agency to make the issue a constitutional matter.

It would be an interesting mental exercise to consider. Say a state tells the DEA it no longer wants them in the state, claiming ownership of drug law enforcement in the state.

It would be an interesting case to say the least.

 

[g5000]

What about the Border Patrol, FBI, DEA? Or Marshalls on flights that never cross a state border (Like San Fran to LA, or Miami to Jacksonville)

The constitution does not ban the states from allowing federal agencies authority over certain areas.

As before, I think it would take a state saying "get out" to a federal agency to make the issue a constitutional matter.

It would be an interesting mental exercise to consider. Say a state tells the DEA it no longer wants them in the state, claiming ownership of drug law enforcement in the state.

It would be an interesting case to say the least.

There already has been such a case. And the Supremes ruled in favor of the feds.

Gonzales v. Raich.

.

 

[martybegan]

What about the Border Patrol, FBI, DEA? Or Marshalls on flights that never cross a state border (Like San Fran to LA, or Miami to Jacksonville)

The constitution does not ban the states from allowing federal agencies authority over certain areas.

As before, I think it would take a state saying "get out" to a federal agency to make the issue a constitutional matter.

It would be an interesting mental exercise to consider. Say a state tells the DEA it no longer wants them in the state, claiming ownership of drug law enforcement in the state.

It would be an interesting case to say the least.

There already has been such a case. And the Supremes ruled in favor of the feds.

Gonzales v. Raich.

.

Nice research. Reading the case it does seem to apply to this. It also seems like a really crappy decison.

 

[Ernie S.]

Title asks the simple question. I anticipate a fun answer. Would an armed civilian law enforcement officer, a US Air Marshall, flying on a plane from Kansas City to Atlanta be allowed under the US Constitution?

Well, yes, in a broad interpretation yes. The government can regulate commerce between the States and foreign countries, so can write and enforce laws to do so.
Can they put a federal Sky Marshall on a flight from Mobile to Birmingham? Technically no.

 

[Ernie S.]

What about the Border Patrol, FBI, DEA? Or Marshalls on flights that never cross a state border (Like San Fran to LA, or Miami to Jacksonville)

You probably should take the rest of the day off and read the Interstate Commerce clause.

Take 2 days, if need be. The clause is 16 words with 2 of them having 3 syllables.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What about the Border Patrol, FBI, DEA? Or Marshalls on flights that never cross a state border (Like San Fran to LA, or Miami to Jacksonville)

The Congress and the Supreme Court have broadened the definition of Interstate trade. My personal opinion is that the Fed has no police Power within a State, Congress has passed laws that say if some part of the Organization is crossing State lines all of its activities are interstate trade. That is how they cover in State if they assign a Marshal.

The FBI, DEA and other Federal law enforcement usually have to provide a cross state threat before they can get involved as anything other then advisers, I know the DEA and the BATF have violated that provision I don't think the FBI has. Again they claim if some of the types of crimes cross State lines then even those that do not are interstate crimes.

The Border Patrol has a job to do with Inter National travel and violations. Same with ICE. The Secret Service is charged with treasury and protecting the President and other dignitaries so they have limited police power.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Title asks the simple question. I anticipate a fun answer. Would an armed civilian law enforcement officer, a US Air Marshall, flying on a plane from Kansas City to Atlanta be allowed under the US Constitution?

Interstate trade is the sole authority of the US Government. Both protecting it and regulating it. Armed law enforcement aboard interstate trade is not only covered it is a requirement if there is a threat, Same with international flights.

Are you saying that Air Marshalls regulate Interstate Trade?

 

[martybegan]

Title asks the simple question. I anticipate a fun answer. Would an armed civilian law enforcement officer, a US Air Marshall, flying on a plane from Kansas City to Atlanta be allowed under the US Constitution?

Interstate trade is the sole authority of the US Government. Both protecting it and regulating it. Armed law enforcement aboard interstate trade is not only covered it is a requirement if there is a threat, Same with international flights.

Are you saying that Air Marshalls regulate Interstate Trade?

I think the point is that air travel is one of those areas where since the vehicle crosses states with regularity and with speed, it would be preferable to use federal agents, who do not have juristiction issues when they cross state borders.