Comment by cryptarch | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cryptarch | Hacker News Reader

Could someone tell me more about the American Enterprise Institute? They critique "Trump's executive-orders" situation, which a lot of organizations could do but they ended up in the Economist. They basically enter the picture like "we're an authority and we're saying stuff is bad, like we have an actual code for how bad it almost is".

They're a conservative think-tank, they seem to have intelligence/military ties, seem to be pro-intervention (foreign war), were against emission trading (but pro CO2 tax) and have received large donations at one point from ExxonMobil. It's still a bit of a murky picture to me. The name sets off alarm bells for me.

On the article: I noticed the phrase "students of the constitution"; it's an odd combination that elicits (for me) student protests and conservative ideology.

I'm not surprised by the current Trump situation. I've been following the shift to authoritarianism in the US and UK for a while, and this seems like the logical next step.

I haven't considered the US as a travel destination in a while, the same goes for the UK. These countries aren't stable, they're very unfree relative to where I live (NL), and I just won't stand for the level of humiliation their checks at airports have arrived at. They also seem like dangerous places to go, as they're close to no-law zones where the TSA has free reign.

It's bad enough that our largest airport has scanners that make 3D images of your naked body, but to top it up you often get a full pat-down, especially if you wear clothes with pieces of metal in it (like of jeans).

I'd much rather go spend my time and money in countries that don't require my genitals to be patted down by strangers.

Off-topic: I'm not sure why this thread was flagged. I also think it's weird that replies were disabled for e.g. the comment by TulliusCicero, but that might just be because I don't understand the disable-reply-button system.

Agree that this doesn't warrant flagging. Thanks for re-posting. As an American who regularly travels within and beyond our borders, I've developed similar feelings about the protocol for security checks in the US. Getting the full-body patdown is awkward, taking off jackets, belts, shoes, etc. and then putting them back on in front of a throng of people borders on humiliating for someone with anxiety issues.

I lost a pair of boots on the way to a meeting on an internal flight in the US. It really can get quite crazy. (And no, steel tipped boots are not weapons but a safety device and are very common in rural areas).

You could argue about my dress sense, but to confiscate my boots is just nuts.

I wouldn't be surprised if the boots fit the person that confiscated them -- or someone else who was working that day. Are they really supposed to not be allowed?

> Are they really supposed to not be allowed?

From Canada (Sault Ste Marie) to Minneapolis it wasn't a problem, but on the connecting flight to San Francisco it was.

And in a way that's the problem: these rules are quite selectively/randomly enforced and even if there is paragraph somewhere that allows them explicitly I never even thought of challenging the official handed over my boots and bought a pair of new shoes on arrival in San Francisco. (Try finding a pair of shoes that early in the morning...)

So you're probably right, even so I'm not stupid enough to start a fight with a TSA guy and end up in more trouble than it is worth and they probably abuse that when they can get away with it (foreigners).

Their rules include something like 'The final decision rests with the TSA officer' so good luck challenging that.

They settle cases for millions each year where TSA employees were caught stealing from passengers.

They're right to criticize any president when it comes to executive orders. The biggest flaw in them is that they lean heavily on implied powers which in itself is a hotly debated clause of the constitution. Anyone worth their salt on any part of the US political spectrum would oppose their overuse and abuse. Frankly, the fewer EOs any POTUS issues the better since each one expands the reach of the executive branch at the expense of the others.

And yet, I think a lot of the reason we've gotten here is congressional deadlock, with EOs and rules filling legislative voids. There was a decent chunk of the Obama presidency where Congress was incapable of passing anything more complicated than naming a day of recognition, and openly fluted with government shutdown repeatedly.

We've got a failed legislative system, and are now working ourselves toward a completely failed system of government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com