Ron Paul ‘Police state’ is ‘growing out of control’

[Robodoon]

Ron Paul on son’s detention by TSA: ‘Police state’ is ‘growing out of control’
By Steven Nelson - The Daily Caller Published: 12:29 PM 01/23/2012 | Updated: 9:06 PM 01/23/2012

Republican presidential candidate and Texas Rep. Ron Paul issued a sharply-worded statement in reaction to the detention of his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, by Transportation Security Administration agents in Nashville on Monday.

“The police state in this country is growing out of control,” Paul wrote in a statement provided to The Daily Caller. “One of the ultimate embodiments of this is the TSA that gropes and grabs our kids and our seniors and does nothing to keep us safe.”

Paul has been a vocal critic of the TSA, and is the sponsor of the “American Traveler Dignity Act,” which would remove TSA agents’ immunity from prosecution for implementing invasive pat-down procedures.

In Paul’s Monday statement, he noted, “my ‘Restore America Plan,’ in additional to cutting $1 trillion dollars in one year, eliminates the TSA.”

Read more: Ron Paul | TSA | Rand Paul | The Daily Caller

Comment: It amazes me people are so asleep they believe that TSA is here to protect us.
Its for police state, See Rockefeller even said before 911 that the War on Terror would be a created fraud that would never end. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA]Rockefeller Reveals 9/11 FRAUD to Aaron Russo - YouTube[/ame]

Good thing this is America and that could never happen here, well the Germans said the same thing under Hitler, cuz that was "Germany"

 

[Decepticon]

Maybe the Pauls should read U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908

Because it pretty much spells out that you GIVE UP YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS if you CHOOSE to fly.
If you don't want to be searched, then drive. But YOUR rights don't extend to minimizing EVERYONE ELSE'S safety.





While the new TSA enhanced pat downs may violate the Fourth Amendment on the surface, what most people are not aware of is that the 9th Circuit Court of the United States ruled on the search of passengers in airports back in 1973, which effectively suspends limited aspects of the Fourth Amendment while undergoing airport security screening.

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

U.S. vs Davis goes onto to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

U.S. vs Davis was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1986 in U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 with this ruling “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”
How The TSA Legally Circumvents The Fourth Amendment - Flying With Fish


No amount of Ronulan bullshit changes this.

 

[Robodoon]

Maybe the Pauls should read U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908

Because it pretty much spells out that you GIVE UP YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS if you CHOOSE to fly.
If you don't want to be searched, then drive. But YOUR rights don't extend to minimizing EVERYONE ELSE'S safety.





While the new TSA enhanced pat downs may violate the Fourth Amendment on the surface, what most people are not aware of is that the 9th Circuit Court of the United States ruled on the search of passengers in airports back in 1973, which effectively suspends limited aspects of the Fourth Amendment while undergoing airport security screening.

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

U.S. vs Davis goes onto to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

U.S. vs Davis was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1986 in U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 with this ruling “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”
How The TSA Legally Circumvents The Fourth Amendment - Flying With Fish


No amount of Ronulan bullshit changes this.

TSA is rolling out into the streets, would you then say "Don't drive"?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Maybe the Pauls should read U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908

Because it pretty much spells out that you GIVE UP YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS if you CHOOSE to fly.
If you don't want to be searched, then drive. But YOUR rights don't extend to minimizing EVERYONE ELSE'S safety.





While the new TSA enhanced pat downs may violate the Fourth Amendment on the surface, what most people are not aware of is that the 9th Circuit Court of the United States ruled on the search of passengers in airports back in 1973, which effectively suspends limited aspects of the Fourth Amendment while undergoing airport security screening.

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

U.S. vs Davis goes onto to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

U.S. vs Davis was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1986 in U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 with this ruling “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”
How The TSA Legally Circumvents The Fourth Amendment - Flying With Fish


No amount of Ronulan bullshit changes this.

Who cares what the court says? The TSA is going to go. The judge is just an employee.

 

[paulitician]

The Police State is already here...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKkFoSt6aKQ]Police State 2012: No Need to Wait, It's Already Here - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LibertyForAll]

Court rulings can be wrong and unjust. They can't change the constitution and the constitution is clear.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The constitution is clear that We the People have empowered the government with the necessary power to preserve and protect We the People, and that includes giving up some personal liberty in return for safer air travel.

 

[LibertyForAll]

The constitution is clear that We the People have empowered the government with the necessary power to preserve and protect We the People, and that includes giving up some personal liberty in return for safer air travel.

Actually, No it doesn't. It guarantees protection from unreasonable search and seizure based without probable cause. There is no probable cause. If the airlines want to do it then fine but the government should stay out of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The constitution is clear that We the People have empowered the government with the necessary power to preserve and protect We the People, and that includes giving up some personal liberty in return for safer air travel.

Actually, No it doesn't. It guarantees protection from unreasonable search and seizure based without probable cause. There is no probable cause. If the airlines want to do it then fine but the government should stay out of it.

um . . . you are woefully wrong on the principles of SCOTUS's duties and the power of judicial review. invent a time travel machine and go back to 1791 if you want to live that way.

 

[paulitician]

Boy, you people just don't get it. Big Brother needs to take your rights away in order to protect them. Because "911 changed everything." So quit your complaining and get onboard with the Police State!...Or else!

 

[eots]

The constitution is clear that We the People have empowered the government with the necessary power to preserve and protect We the People, and that includes giving up some personal liberty in return for safer air travel.

Actually, No it doesn't. It guarantees protection from unreasonable search and seizure based without probable cause. There is no probable cause. If the airlines want to do it then fine but the government should stay out of it.

um . . . you are woefully wrong on the principles of SCOTUS's duties and the power of judicial review. invent a time travel machine and go back to 1791 if you want to live that way.

it seems with the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber molesting old ladies and children did little to make travel safer

 

[Decepticon]

Why don't all you people who are SO CERTAIN of your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS put them to the test?

I hear a lot of people say the same things about TAXATION being THEFT and nothing but TALK from them either.

Go ahead and whine like little babies. If you don't like the TSA, don't fly. Those are your choices until you grow a pair and put your little "theories" to the test.

 

[eots]

Why don't all you people who are SO CERTAIN of your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS put them to the test?

I hear a lot of people say the same things about TAXATION being THEFT and nothing but TALK from them either.

Go ahead and whine like little babies. If you don't like the TSA, don't fly. Those are your choices until you grow a pair and put your little "theories" to the test.

you are rambling...

 

[LibertyForAll]

Why don't all you people who are SO CERTAIN of your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS put them to the test?

I hear a lot of people say the same things about TAXATION being THEFT and nothing but TALK from them either.

Go ahead and whine like little babies. If you don't like the TSA, don't fly. Those are your choices until you grow a pair and put your little "theories" to the test.

Because the fact that the laws are unconstitutional doesn't change the fact that they are laws being enforced by the government. I prefer to work to get people elected who will change the laws rather than go to prison. If you want to go the other route then feel free I will support your decision.

 

[P F Tinmore]

http://archives2012.gcnlive.com/Archives2012/jan12/PowerHour/0124121.mp3

 

[Decepticon]

Why don't all you people who are SO CERTAIN of your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS put them to the test?

I hear a lot of people say the same things about TAXATION being THEFT and nothing but TALK from them either.

Go ahead and whine like little babies. If you don't like the TSA, don't fly. Those are your choices until you grow a pair and put your little "theories" to the test.

Because the fact that the laws are unconstitutional doesn't change the fact that they are laws being enforced by the government. I prefer to work to get people elected who will change the laws rather than go to prison. If you want to go the other route then feel free I will support your decision.

If the laws are unconstitutional, then FILE A LAWSUIT! Take it to the supreme court and see if they overturn precedent. Simply ASSERTING they are unconstitutional without any sort of legal argument isn't any sort of answer. It's a dodge because you don't HAVE anything to back up your contentions.

Link to the people who are trying to change the laws about interstate commerce?
Because THAT'S what the TSA is regulating. Last I checked, interstate commerce was the pervue of the federal government.

What exactly will you change? And what happens when terrorists get by because Rand Paul felt offended at having to take off his shoes like a commoner?

Typical conservative. A lot of outrage over something they don't even come CLOSE to understanding.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The so called war on terror is a farce anyway.

 

[eots]

Why don't all you people who are SO CERTAIN of your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS put them to the test?

I hear a lot of people say the same things about TAXATION being THEFT and nothing but TALK from them either.

Go ahead and whine like little babies. If you don't like the TSA, don't fly. Those are your choices until you grow a pair and put your little "theories" to the test.

Because the fact that the laws are unconstitutional doesn't change the fact that they are laws being enforced by the government. I prefer to work to get people elected who will change the laws rather than go to prison. If you want to go the other route then feel free I will support your decision.

If the laws are unconstitutional, then FILE A LAWSUIT! Take it to the supreme court and see if they overturn precedent. Simply ASSERTING they are unconstitutional without any sort of legal argument isn't any sort of answer. It's a dodge because you don't HAVE anything to back up your contentions.

Link to the people who are trying to change the laws about interstate commerce?
Because THAT'S what the TSA is regulating. Last I checked, interstate commerce was the pervue of the federal government.

What exactly will you change? And what happens when terrorists get by because Rand Paul felt offended at having to take off his shoes like a commoner?

Typical conservative. A lot of outrage over something they don't even come CLOSE to understanding.

the terrorist !!! the terrorist !!! the terrorist !! omg someone save us !!

 

[paulitician]

The so called war on terror is a farce anyway.

Their 'War on Terror' is meant to be an indefinite War. It has worked out perfectly for the Global Elite assholes. It's very sad.

 

[LibertyForAll]

The constitution is clear that We the People have empowered the government with the necessary power to preserve and protect We the People, and that includes giving up some personal liberty in return for safer air travel.

Actually, No it doesn't. It guarantees protection from unreasonable search and seizure based without probable cause. There is no probable cause. If the airlines want to do it then fine but the government should stay out of it.

um . . . you are woefully wrong on the principles of SCOTUS's duties and the power of judicial review. invent a time travel machine and go back to 1791 if you want to live that way.

The power of judicial review is not an explicit power granted by the constitution. Even if you accept them as having this implied power it does not allow them to change the constitution, it only allows them to verify the constitutionality of laws, regulations and treaties. Humans are fallible and even the supreme court can be wrong. I may have to abide by the decisions because it is the present law of the land but I don't have to agree with it and I can work to change it.