http://noblasters.com/post/1656164483/my...nter-audio

(11-23-2010 10:38 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  http://noblasters.com/post/1656164483/my...nter-audio

Now what he did different than the "don't touch my junk" guy wsa he treated the TSA agent like a person and not a story.

Of course it helps that he said he was recording..

Unless the SCOTUS says so, how do you PROVE something unconstitutional?

Seems he refused the scan, but was polite about it... was treated with respect but not allowed to fly. I can't hear all the audio, so I apologize if I am 100% off base.

(11-23-2010 11:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Unless the SCOTUS says so, how do you PROVE something unconstitutional?

Seems he refused the scan, but was polite about it... was treated with respect but not allowed to fly. I can't hear all the audio, so I apologize if I am 100% off base.

He had flown and was returning, with no connection, to Cincy...

The issue is that in International flights TSA performs security on all people who deplane (citizen or not). And then, as with outgoing domestic, they 'randomly' do a back scatter.

If I was flying anywhere and had no compelling reason to move fast I would have done the same thing.

I would also go bat $#it crazy if they tried to pat down my wife or daughters..

You can always assert that something is unconstitutional, further he tried to get them to admit that the backscatter or groping was or was not mandatory.

The most telling part is how the TSA kept trying to shift responsibility on the police despite the AP's insastance that they would not detain him unless TSA directed them to do so.

(11-23-2010 11:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Unless the SCOTUS says so, how do you PROVE something unconstitutional?

The idea that something is "unconstitutional" (or not) because the Supreme Court "says so" has always struck me as eccentric, bordering on absurd.

But there's no denying that concept has become deeply ingrained into America's consciousness. So long as it remains there, all the periodic talk about restoring "civil liberties" and "limited government" will remain empty blather.

(11-23-2010 11:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-23-2010 11:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Unless the SCOTUS says so, how do you PROVE something unconstitutional?

The idea that something is "unconstitutional" (or not) because the Supreme Court "says so" has always struck me as eccentric, bordering on absurd.

But there's no denying that concept has become deeply ingrained into America's consciousness. So long as it remains there, all the periodic talk about restoring "civil liberties" and "limited government" will remain empty blather.

The fact hat opinions abound on things is exactly why I responded to the claim that the blooger had "proved" something.

It's pretty clear that the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter in rules of law relating to Constitutionality... and that the States CAN over-rule the SCOTUS but only by amendment. That's pretty clearly how it works. I'm sorry you find it eccentric and absurd.

Good luck with that

(11-24-2010 02:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's pretty clear that the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter in rules of law relating to Constitutionality... and that the States CAN over-rule the SCOTUS but only by amendment.

Do you see anything in the text of the Constitution to support that?

Quote:That's pretty clearly how it works. I'm sorry you find it eccentric and absurd.

It depends on the meaning of "how it works". If that simpply means, "the prevailing system," no, there's nothing absurd about that observation. If you mean, "a good way for a self-governing republic to resolve disputes over its basic law," then yeah, I think it is.

This guy had the TSA by "their" balls. He had come in from France into Cincy. and he was HOME...and...He told them up front that they were being recorded. The TSA had 3 options...arrest him and have to face a possible court case(with the recorded evidence)...let him go through the metal detectors and allow him to embarrass their procedures...or...simply just let him go and get rid of the problem. They chose the later.

The video or audio recording of government bureaucrats doing their jobs is extremely powerful. I doubt very seriously this guy would have gotten away with this without use of that power.

(11-25-2010 04:06 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-24-2010 02:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's pretty clear that the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter in rules of law relating to Constitutionality... and that the States CAN over-rule the SCOTUS but only by amendment.

Do you see anything in the text of the Constitution to support that?

Article 3 Sec 2...

Quote:The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...

That pretty clearly says they have power/jurisdiction over all cases arising under the Constitution.

and Marbury v Madison was filed when most of the framers were still alive and many still active in politics.

You are free to feel differently, I don't feel like debating a 200 year old practice.

Quote:

Quote:That's pretty clearly how it works. I'm sorry you find it eccentric and absurd.

It depends on the meaning of "how it works". If that simpply means, "the prevailing system," no, there's nothing absurd about that observation. If you mean, "a good way for a self-governing republic to resolve disputes over its basic law," then yeah, I think it is.

Well... It certainly seems a conflict to have the people that wrote the laws decide if they are consistent with the framers intent. They only created 3 branches... One of the three has to decide these things. Which would YOU have do it?? Or are you saying that the framers screwed up and there should be a 4th?

(11-28-2010 03:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Marbury v Madison was filed when most of the framers were still alive and many still active in politics.

Several of them [Madison, not least of all. Jefferson, too, although he was a "Founder" not a "Framer"] disagreed with it, too.

Quote:You are free to feel differently, I don't feel like debating a 200 year old practice.

It is possible to support the concept of "judicial review" in some or most instances, yet still reject the concept that the constitutionality of any and all federal and state actions are determined by a vote of nine lawyers, deliberating in secret, at their own lesire, and with virtual life-tenure if they want it. To be sure, the latter concept has prevailed in this country for a long, long time -- despite warnings from people as different as Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Richard Nixon. I make you no secret that I consider it (judicial review) to have been, in practice, mostly harmful to American order and liberty. I also think that most Americans intuitively agree with me on that, even if they have no idea what "Marbury v Madison" was all about.

Quote:It certainly seems a conflict to have the people that wrote the laws decide if they are consistent with the framers intent. They only created 3 branches... One of the three has to decide these things. Which would YOU have do it??

By and by, I think the greater authority should rest with the branch(es) most accountable to the people. By any honest reckoning, the judiciary is the least accountable branch, and it should accordingly have the least authority, IMHO.

Quote:Or are you saying that the framers screwed up and there should be a 4th?

I think the Framers made many notable mistakes/deficiencies in crafting the Constitution (although the non-creation of a 4th branch of gov't is not one of them). The existence of so many Amendments -- not to mention all the proposed Amendments that have never become law -- suggests I am not alone in this.

................

FWIW, some constitutional scholars believe the "Independent Regulatory Agencies" like the EPA, FEMA and whatnot do, in fact, serve as a de-facto 4th branch of government.

(11-29-2010 04:52 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-28-2010 03:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Marbury v Madison was filed when most of the framers were still alive and many still active in politics.

Several of them [Madison, not least of all. Jefferson, too, although he was a "Founder" not a "Framer"] disagreed with it, too.

Obviously not enough of them to change it.

Quote:

Quote:You are free to feel differently, I don't feel like debating a 200 year old practice.

It is possible to support the concept of "judicial review" in some or most instances, yet still reject the concept that the constitutionality of any and all federal and state actions are determined by a vote of nine lawyers

That part alone is pretty clear in the line I quoted from Art 3. As to the specific process... ok... whatever. Making them beholden to the very people they are regulating is just as bad if not worse.

Quote:

Quote:It certainly seems a conflict to have the people that wrote the laws decide if they are consistent with the framers intent. They only created 3 branches... One of the three has to decide these things. Which would YOU have do it??

By and by, I think the greater authority should rest with the branch(es) most accountable to the people. By any honest reckoning, the judiciary is the least accountable branch, and it should accordingly have the least authority, IMHO.

Fine, but that's not what the Constitution says. Politicians DO have the ultimate authority. If they really disagree, then amend the constitution. Hard to do, as it should be... but pretty straightforward. IMHO, politicians aren't particularly accountable... other than perhaps the President. As Congress is the group CREATING the laws being reviewed, it is silly to have them police themselves. They wouldn't pass a law they KNOWINGLY thought was unconstitutional.

Quote:I think the Framers made many notable mistakes/deficiencies in crafting the Constitution (although the non-creation of a 4th branch of gov't is not one of them). The existence of so many Amendments -- not to mention all the proposed Amendments that have never become law -- suggests I am not alone in this.

There really aren't that many amendments to the Constitution considering 1776 vs 2010... what was/is imaginable. Most were probably pretty clear in 1776, but 200 years later, we're not so sure... so we clarify it (are slaves "all men"?? are women "men"??)

We are where we are. Arguing about whether or not we should be here is pretty moot. If you don't like it, change it.
[/academic argument]