TSA Threatens To Cancel All Flights Out Of Texas If ‘Groping Bill’ Passed | Hacker News Reader

TSA Threatens To Cancel All Flights Out Of Texas If ‘Groping Bill’ Passed

blogs.forbes.com

51 pointsotherwise36 comments

Open articleView on HN

...would have had to shut down Texas airports as it “could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”

They already can't do it now, but that doesn't keep them from shutting down airports.

Edit: wrote that last part wrong - I meant we don't see them shutting down airports now.

Even the politics are theater. Texas backed down the moment they were threatened.

Who the heck gave the TSA so much power? They cannot even be defunded.

Meanwhile congress voted themselves special exemptions to bypass the TSA searches, so they don't even care what happens.

Who the heck gave the TSA so much power?

It's not that the TSA has that much power, it's where their power is derived from. The TSA is a federal authority, and all federal laws supercede state and local laws, per the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause).

This sounds very similar to federal drug laws and now the new healthcare mandate. States are growing tired of being told what to do, especially when a majority of their populace disagrees with specific law. Not long ago many states passed amendments re-asserting their rights as states.

I think this would have been a great time for a large influential state to take a stand, but instead they backed down. I can still hope that CA will step up and do more than passively ignoring federal drug laws, and instead make drugs legal and throw out the DEA.

Maybe I'm just too much a cynic, but any time I see a state trying to buck a federal law, I picture a special interest who thought their money would go further purchasing favor with legislative officials at the state level rather than the federal.

Not that I disagree with you too much about this particular battle... Just that cynicism shining through my attempt to quelch it.

Actually, I think matwood brought up an excellent point about California. Their laws on marijuana are the only example I'm aware of where the state very clearly made laws that contradicted federal laws, and the federal authorities have just let it slide. If the federal government wanted to, they could make an issue out it. But they have not.

Don't the feds routinely still bust people in CA?

Well, there is also the 10th amendment, but we usually beat that down with some interstate commerce argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_S...

In order for that to be relevant, you'd have to argue that the President does not have the authority to establish the TSA.

Chief Justice John Marshall expressed it eloquently back in 1819 in his opinion of Mcculloch v. Maryland: That where this repugnancy exists, that authority which is supreme must control, not yield to that over which it is supreme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US...

I still don't think the TSA can suspend all flights out of Texas just 'cause.

Apparently they can.

I don't mean to be glib, but I'm not aware of prohibition against it, and if they had done it, it is quite possible that either Congress or the courts could force them to renege on the decision. (The President has ultimate authority over them, so he could always order the decision reversed, but that's normal chain of command, not checks-and-balances.) But legally, it appears they do have that power.

Probably flights on public carriers. I'm guessing some sort of shift to a private charter configuration would be one way to bypass TSA security. But I'm just guessing.

"Texas is barred by the U.S. Constitution from regulating the federal government."

They're so selective in obeying the constitution.

They should have replied with "The constitution doesn't apply in and around airports, so suck it."

A mixed blessing to be sure. It's a promising challenge to the assumption that we will give up all our dignity and privacy for security, but peel back one layer and it looks ugly. The paranoid sexualization of anything to do with the body, states' rights, secession.... It's derp versus derp, and it's strange finding myself rooting for sex-phobic states' rights derp for a change.

The commenter "seeker" asks the question: "Since when can the TSA cancel flights in airports that they neither own or manage? Last I checked, most of the large Texas airports were owned and managed by cities in which they reside."

Who does own these airports?

I think the TSA is bluffing implying that they can directly cancel flights, but they certainly have the power to deny anyone past security such that there are no passengers to fly.

That sounds like a terribly chaotic situation.

Not only that, but airports don't need to use the TSA: they can opt to use a private security firm. (Source: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2010/11/amid-airport-...)

Maybe Texas should make a law preventing the TSA from handling security at any Texas airports.

Private security firms at airports operate under the TSA's direction.

Well, since the TSA aren't law enforcement, they can't legally detain anyone - they rely on the police (local / state) for enforcement. Technically, Texas could have their officers refuse to detain those the TSA refused to clear.

At that point, the feds would need to step in with either the FBI or Federal Marshalls to prevent fliers from boarding planes.

The american people could never easily spot totalitarian acts by the government. The 'destruction of personal rights' is all over the country and all over multiple areas of life.

It's time for everyone to make a stand, not just Texas.

Contrary to your view, I think this is how reasonably democratic societies deal with privacy and personal rights: through politics, not bloodshed.

Your suggestion, taken literally, is a call to revolution which would directly result in a drastic reduction in many people's practical rights, including the right to not be dead.

Not revolution, but indignation. make your voices be heard by everyone. Make the politicians see that the people are not blind anymore, that they cannot simply run over the people's rights.

It is not about revolution but about re-enforcing basic rights and freedom, like getting into an airplane without automatically be assumed a terrorist, and without hands touching every inch of your body.

The stand that needs to be made is with voice and action, not blood. If suddenly everyone follows Texas' example (or maybe find out a more effective way of punching the TSA on the face) things would change. It's all about who has the strongest influence, and in a democracy, it is always the people.

My impression -- the grief's not about how the problem is dealt with, but that it's just swept under the rug instead.

> Your suggestion, taken literally, is a call to revolution (...)

Such voices aren't very dangerous in normal circumstances, as they don't appeal to wider audiences until those audiences become quite edgy for other reasons. Such voices, taken statistically, are an indicator of how close to serious unrest the society as a whole is. Which, nb., is another reason free speech is necessary for functional democracy.

I have a problem with the situation with the TSA as well, but it deeply bothers me when people so easily fall back on such hyperbolic rhetoric. It poisons discourse and prevents rational discussion by flattening subtleties.

At the end of the day the people with all the power are too apathetic to wield it.

The State doesn't want the airport shut-down, that's bad for business. It would cause all kinds of problems even if they were closed for a relatively short period of time. Dallas is of course a hub, so the impact on travelers would go _far_ beyond the Texan borders.

The airlines (especially those with hubs in Texas) are quaking in their boots. The disruption this would have on the schedules would be epic.

The TSA with usual Federal un-accountability is prepared to play chicken.

The real people with the power are of course the voters and passengers. But it would take a concerted effort of "the many" to get the TSA disbanded. And while TSA disbandment is probably too extreme, what it could use is some oversight and political accountability.

At the end of the day though this isn't a big enough issue to change a person's vote. So all that happens is that personal liberties are eroded one grope at a time.

This a a good start. At least there is some political will to recognize the TSA's conduct is wrong.

Any intelligent and sufficiently motivated individual could bypass airport security with a weapon. Why does it exist?

That's a good question. Perhaps they do it for the same reason that a police officer stands by road construction crews now. The officer has no radar gun, yet everybody slows down and behaves when they are there. If someone were really motivated they could cause havoc at the work site even though the officer was there.

But maybe this just keeps the not so intelligent and motivated from getting involved.

I mean, why would someone try to smuggle a knife aboard in his shoe? http://www.tsa.gov/press/goodcatch/050511_artfully_concealed...

Oh really? How would you do it?

Be interesting to see a court case with the much touted 'feds beat states' on the one side and the 1st amendment's 'or the right of the people peaceably to assemble' clause on the other. Might even lead to the whole TSA operation being struck down 'security' or no...

Either the Constitution gets enforced or not. If the Constitution is to be enforced then the Supremacy Clause AND the 4th amendment need to adhered to. That means warrants for all searches.

Deleted comment

Kudos? Texas blinked and the bill isn't going to pass. The TSA would have been ripped to shreds by the airline industry had this passed and the TSA actually tried to cancel flights.

When are we going to get someone with balls to stand up to this egregious destruction of personal rights?

No need to cancel flights. A better TSA response would have been to just not let those you want to pat down board.

Why? They backed down.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com