5 ms·

Here's an overview of the bill - called the "American Traveler Dignity Act" http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1796&Itemid=60 http

by shelly 16y ago

Here's an overview of the bill - called the "American Traveler Dignity Act" http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1796&Itemid=60 http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=... And re: Ron Paul's credibility, I continue to meet a lot of people who admit (in hushed tones) that they would have voted for him in 2008 if he had made it through the primaries... I, too, am doubtful our political system is capable of solving the problem unless enough of us as individuals are willing to stand up (and be groped) rather than meekly letting them strip us of our rights. The duty of the government is to PROTECT our rights, not VIOLATE them!

protomyth 16y ago
> And re: Ron Paul's credibility, I continue to meet a lot of people who admit (in hushed tones) that they would have voted for him in 2008 if he had made it through the primaries... Republicans would do well to notice that a lot of the polling of people who attended tea party rallies across the US show that the people attending were about 50% social liberal / fiscal conservative (more Libertarian) versus social conservative / fiscal conservative (traditional Republican base).
ynniv 16y ago
Better than an overview, here is the full text of the bill: A BILL To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS. No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.
- mjgoins 16y ago
  Isn't this law redundant with the bill of rights? It seems unnecessarily complicated in its wording. It also seems too good to ever pass.
tzs 16y ago
> And re: Ron Paul's credibility, I continue to meet a lot of people who admit (in hushed tones) that they would have voted for him in 2008 if he had made it through the primaries... Show them his "We The People Act" and then see if they feel the same way.
- tzs 16y ago
  I'm curious if whoever downvoted me has read the "We The People Act". What it does is use a legal trick called "jurisdiction stripping" to take several classes of cases out of the jurisdiction of Federal courts (including the Supreme Court). In particular, it removes jurisdiction over cases involving abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and establishment of religion (with the exception that if the Constitutionality of a Federal law is challenged, Federal courts have jurisdiction). This would, among other things, make it so that things like the clause in the Texas state constitution that requires office holders to acknowledge belief in a Supreme Being (and this making atheists and Buddhists ineligible for state office in Texas) legal. Right now, that clause has no effect, because any attempt to enforce it would fall to a challenge in Federal court as a violation of the establishment of religion clause in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. Under "We the People", no challenge could be brought in Federal court. It would be OK if "We the People" passed for a State to actually establish an official state religion, or to outlaw specific religions.
gemma 16y ago
I appreciate Ron Paul's stance, but the introduction of this bill reminds me of the West Wing character Ainsley Hayes and her stance on the Equal Rights Amendment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXPLirJRGDQ#t=3m54s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXPLirJRGDQ#t=3m54s The Fourth Amendment should already be protecting us from what the TSA is doing. Why isn't it? And isn't the fact that Fourth Amendment violations are not prosecuted as such a much bigger issue? The clause that shelters the TSA is from a 1973 court decision: "a warrantless search...is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is 'no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives'" (http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm). Cavity searches aren't far.

by shelly 16y ago

protomyth 16y ago

> And re: Ron Paul's credibility, I continue to meet a lot of people who admit (in hushed tones) that they would have voted for him in 2008 if he had made it through the primaries... Republicans would do well to notice that a lot of the polling of people who attended tea party rallies across the US show that the people attending were about 50% social liberal / fiscal conservative (more Libertarian) versus social conservative / fiscal conservative (traditional Republican base).

ynniv 16y ago

Better than an overview, here is the full text of the bill: A BILL To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS. No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.

mjgoins 16y ago
Isn't this law redundant with the bill of rights? It seems unnecessarily complicated in its wording. It also seems too good to ever pass.

tzs 16y ago

> And re: Ron Paul's credibility, I continue to meet a lot of people who admit (in hushed tones) that they would have voted for him in 2008 if he had made it through the primaries... Show them his "We The People Act" and then see if they feel the same way.

tzs 16y ago
I'm curious if whoever downvoted me has read the "We The People Act". What it does is use a legal trick called "jurisdiction stripping" to take several classes of cases out of the jurisdiction of Federal courts (including the Supreme Court). In particular, it removes jurisdiction over cases involving abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and establishment of religion (with the exception that if the Constitutionality of a Federal law is challenged, Federal courts have jurisdiction). This would, among other things, make it so that things like the clause in the Texas state constitution that requires office holders to acknowledge belief in a Supreme Being (and this making atheists and Buddhists ineligible for state office in Texas) legal. Right now, that clause has no effect, because any attempt to enforce it would fall to a challenge in Federal court as a violation of the establishment of religion clause in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. Under "We the People", no challenge could be brought in Federal court. It would be OK if "We the People" passed for a State to actually establish an official state religion, or to outlaw specific religions.

gemma 16y ago

I appreciate Ron Paul's stance, but the introduction of this bill reminds me of the West Wing character Ainsley Hayes and her stance on the Equal Rights Amendment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXPLirJRGDQ#t=3m54s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXPLirJRGDQ#t=3m54s The Fourth Amendment should already be protecting us from what the TSA is doing. Why isn't it? And isn't the fact that Fourth Amendment violations are not prosecuted as such a much bigger issue? The clause that shelters the TSA is from a 1973 court decision: "a warrantless search...is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is 'no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives'" (http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm). Cavity searches aren't far.