First Reading: Is the Anti-Groping Issue Mostly Symbolic?

June 22, 2011 Billboard, Columns, Latest News & Quotes, Relevant Articles

Editor’s Note: What makes a search “constitutionally unreasonable”? How should the supremacy clause influence States as they consider legislation designed to restrain the TSA from violating citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights?

The Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution establishes a measure of binding compliance by the states to subordinate their laws to the Federal government’s superior position as dictated by the Constitution.

Article VI, Section II of the U.S. Constitution reads:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

No State’s constitution or their laws may conflict with a Federal law. And, all Federal statutes or laws must be “in pursuance” of ”This Constitution” and may not truncate, trample upon, dismiss, or overlook the guaranteed protections provided within the U.S. Constitution itself, including the Bill of Rights — the first Ten Amendments — without a constitutional revision or an individual’s forfeiture of rights due to breaking another binding law. The Bill of Rights was ADDED to the U.S. Constitution to clarify and help interpret the limits of the powers enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and the protections secured therein.

One constitutional enumeration of power may not be used to strip another constitutionally protected right. In the present consideration concerning the TSA and their pat-downs, citizens’ Forth Amendment rights to remain secure in their person cannot be stripped from them without probable cause. Desiring to fly does not place a citizen under suspicion to commit a crime or grant probable cause for any agency to dismiss a U.S. Constitutionally protected right — the sanctity and security of body.

First Reading: Is the Anti-Groping Issue Mostly Symbolic?

By Jason Embry | Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 07:39 AM

“Rodriguez said the letter illustrates that a state law would be ‘really only symbolic.”

Late addition to special session fits Perry narrative but may only be symbolic, health care bill delayed and Bloomberg poll shows Obama’s support on economy is meager among independents.

House is in at 10. Senate is in at 2.

In this morning’s Statesman, Tim Eaton and I take a look at the political implications of Gov. Rick Perry’s decision to add the anti-groping legislation to the special session agenda and what authority the state might have to make such a change: “Some people have cheered Perry’s move to end aggressive pat-downs, while some law scholars have questioned the bill’s constitutionality. The U.S. Department of Justice has not backed down from its threat to possibly end flights in Texas if the bill passes, and the Transportation Security Administration keeps insisting that pat-downs are vital to safety. Meanwhile, at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, groping doesn’t seem to be a major problem. Since January, airport officials have received 10 emailed complaints relating to security checkpoints, airport spokesman Jim Halbrook said. ‘And most of it had to do with line length and line management,’ Halbrook said. ‘None had to do with the pat-down procedure.’ … In a letter last month, the Department of Justice’s John Murphy, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, said legislation like Simpson’s would interfere with Transportation Security Administration agents’ responsibilities. The department did not answer a question Tuesday about Murphy’s claim in May in which he said flights might be canceled if a bill like Simpson’s passes. … Daniel Rodriguez of the University of Texas School of Law also said the supremacy clause could apply. There are some areas in which states have so much discretion that the federal government cannot enact laws that are superior to them, but interstate transportation is not one of those areas, he said. Also, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office has written a letter to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the state Senate, saying that specific language can be added to the bill to help ward off a constitutional fight. The letter suggests specifying that an offense occurs only if the search were ‘constitutionally unreasonable.’ Rodriguez said the letter illustrates that a state law would be ‘really only symbolic.’”