On the matter of Rand Paul’s being detained by TSA, I see people arguing that the machine pinged, and that Senators should be subject to the same rules as everybody else.
Bullshit. It is absolutely, positively, totally irrelevant whether the machine pinged, didn’t ping, or lit every situation board at NORAD with red lights and sirens. Bringing up the machine’s reaction is either abject stupidity or deliberate dishonesty — misplaced pseudo-egalitarianism or an attempt to divert people from the subject.
Paul is a Senator. Senators are members of Congress. Members of Congress SHALL NOT BE IMPEDED except in extreme cases. The Constitution doesn’t say “stopped” or “prevented”. It says “impeded”, that is, slowed down or temporarily inconvenienced. Paul lost two hours and missed his flight. That’s an impediment, and it’s unConstitutional.
Yeah, there’s the potential for abuse — LBJ doing 110 in his Lincoln on Texas back roads comes to mind. It fails to matter. The Constitution ALSO says that the only judge of the qualifications of members of Congress is Congress. If anybody’s going to slap a Senator down, it has to be the Senate, not some TSA baby-groper.
Senators are not “anybody else”, they’re Congresscritters. Congresscritters are important, and have that privilege in the Constitution, because they’re Congresscritters. The Framers put the requirement in because they knew history, particularly the events surrounding the English Revolution and Restoration. There’s a long history of rulers getting a free hand by preventing Parliament from meeting, and although there’s no way for Law to stand in the way of that in a practical sense, with that provision as Law of the Land Teh Protector at least can’t argue that the tactic is legal.
Personally, I think it was in the nature of a trial run. If this stands, all the President has to do is tell TSA to crank the machine’s sensitivity up to “tooth fillings and gum wrappers” whenever a Senator comes through. Presto, no session, and a free hand for recess appointments. Oliver Cromwell would be so proud.
[UPDATE] Thanks, Glenn, but a minor correction. I’m not “worried”. I expect abuse, in the same way I expect sunrise.
Ric's Rulez 
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
24 January 2012 at 7:45 am
Instapundit » Blog Archive » TSA UPDATE: White House Sides With TSA In Rand Paul Patdown. Ric Locke is worried about the pote…
[…] Ric Locke is worried about the potential for abuse. […]
24 January 2012 at 7:55 am
_Jon
I agree with your points.
The question becomes; “What’s next?”
The TSA violated the Constitution. What can Paul – or anybody – do about it?
This isn’t rhetorical, it is a sincere query into the actions that can be taken if this law is violated.
24 January 2012 at 8:46 am
Quilly Mammoth
Once again Barry Obama supports an unconstitutional action. This is getting very fucking worrisome.
24 January 2012 at 9:11 am
juvat
_Jon,
While it would be difficult, the obvious answer is to defund the TSA. Much like Congress did in 1975 to military aid to Vietnam, no money, no agency.
24 January 2012 at 9:43 am
Another tool in the King’s arsenal » Cold Fury
[…] be used against the enemies of the State. Bullshit. It is absolutely, positively, totally irrelevant whether the machine pinged, didn’t […]
24 January 2012 at 10:48 am
deprinac
The irony is that Congress specifically wrote into the law that created TSA that Senators and Members of Congress had to be screened. That’s why they are subject to screening.
24 January 2012 at 1:28 pm
Ric Locke
Thing is, they can’t do that and make it binding without amending the Constitution.
Congresscritters can (and should, IMAO) abide by the law as a courtesy to their constituents, but they can’t be compelled to as a matter of Law. The Constitution is trumps.
24 January 2012 at 1:29 pm
Quilly Mammoth
Yes, Congresscritters write lots of things that are unconstitutional. Hence Judicial Oversight. Just because they put in a clause to make the TSA more politically palatable doesn’t mean it’s right.
24 January 2012 at 11:02 am
memomachine
What is even more interesting is that in the Senate in order for a Senator to vote they have to be -physically- present. E.g. if Rand Paul absolutely needed to be in the Senate chamber to participate on a vote and was prevented from doing so by the TSA then he cannot vote remotely, call it in or anything.
That’s one reason why members of Congress cannot be impeded.
24 January 2012 at 11:52 am
Moe Lane » #rsrh One last point on the TSA/Rand Paul thing.
[…] regard to yesterday’s TSA/Rand Paul flap, Ric Locke notes something important here: Senators are not “anybody else”, they’re Congresscritters. Congresscritters are important, […]
24 January 2012 at 12:02 pm
Dustin
You’re absolutely right about this.
And whether or not I buy into Obama ramping this up with abuse, I see the potential for that, and how the constitution protects against that kind of problem.
But even if I didn’t like this rule, that congress is free from the executive branch’s interference, it’s in the constitution… it’s plain as day that the White House violated it (because they back up the TSA’s behavior), and that’s that.
Not acceptable. I can understand the need to identify the congressman… that kind of common sense impediment… but as soon as that’s done, it’s time to let them go. If we need a special secure way to identify them, let’s get one. If we’re really afraid that our congressmen are going to hijack our planes, along with granny and baby apparently, maybe we have a problem as a society that needs to be addressed.
This security theater crap has been out of hand for quite a while now.
24 January 2012 at 4:04 pm
rboatright (@rboatright)
The constitution does not say impeded. It says “arrested” and it says “questioned.”
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
24 January 2012 at 8:31 pm
jaed
Ah, but that was written back in Teh Olden Days, when the only way the authorities could keep you from going about your lawful business was to arrest you. Now we have “was detained as a Person of Interest” and “was escorted out of the security area” and similar modern constructions. They’re not arrests in some technical sense, but if an agent of the state is keeping you from going about your lawful affairs, by me that’s an arrest.
25 January 2012 at 2:48 pm
richard40
You make a good point about a prez someday ordering the TSA to purposely detain senators. But it is actually worse than that. Instead of ordering TSA to detain all senators, what if it ordered them to only detain repub senators. Great way to get an instant majority.
But Rand Paul actually had even more integrity than the press or the WH has given him credit for. He stated that he didn’t even want special treatment, and his main objection is that no american should be treated that way, which is completely true.
Another amusing observation. Some have suggested that the real terrorists could do just as much damage by having a suicide bomber target the TSA line, than they would do getting through to actually get on a plane, and no TSA scanners and patdowns could possibly defend against it. But the terrorists would never do that because they WANT the TSA do be doing what it is doing now. Because currently the TSA is causing more fear, creating more chaos, and imposing greater costs, than a real terrorist boarding a plane ever could. Why should the terrorists ever want to stop the TSA when the TSA is doing the terrorists work for them, with us paying the bill.
The whole reason the terrorists sponsored the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, and the baby bottle bomber in the first place was not because they thought they could succeed, because they didn’t, the passengers stopped them. They sponsored those crazy ideas because they knew the TSA idiots would overeact exactly as they have, causing far more fear and chaos, at our expense, than real terrorists ever could.
Abolish the TSA. Go back to the oldtime metal detectors, run by the airlines. Keep the hardened cockpit doors, the armed pilots, and the resist all terrorists policy, to ensure a plane can never be taken over. Then just look upon all the other bizarro terrorist ideas as just an acceptable risk of flying, which even after the terrorists was safer than driving. All the chaos and loss of rights would go away, along with a vast unecessary expense, with little to no loss of safety.
25 January 2012 at 5:39 pm
Ric Locke
Yes. The only genuinely valuable function of the TSA is as an existential proof that Franklin was right: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Mighty interesting IP address you got there, fella 🙂
30 January 2012 at 12:55 pm
Danger
Ric,
Nice to see you drawing a crowd.
So…
KEEP FIRING MR!!!