Tweet
An astounding Department of Justice threat to cancel airline flights to and from Texas, in addition to underhanded lobbying by TSA representatives, has killed efforts in the state to pass HB 1937, a bill that would have made invasive pat downs by TSA agents a felony.
HB 1937, a bill that would have made it “A criminal act for security personnel to touch a person’s private areas without probable cause as a condition of travel or as a condition of entry into a public place,” was headed for an imminent Senate vote in Texas having already passed the House unanimously 138-0, before the federal government stepped in to nix the legislation.
In a letter sent to Texas lawmakers, including to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Speaker Joe Straus, the House Clerk, and the Senate Secretary, U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy threatened to cripple the airline industry in the state if legislators did not back down.
“If HR [sic] 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute,” Murphy wrote. “Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”
“We urge that you consider the ramifications of this bill before casting your vote,” Murphy added.
The fact that Murphy can’t even get the name of the bill correct is almost as disconcerting as the rampant mafia-like attitude of the DOJ in using de facto economic terrorism to shoot down the legislation.
Following a fiery debate in the Texas House last night, Senate sponsor Dan Patrick (R-Houston) pulled the bill, remarking that TSA representatives had been “lobbying” the Texas Senate in an effort to mothball the legislation.
“I will pull HB 1937 down, but I will stand for Liberty in the state of Texas,” Patrick said.
Patrick added that TSA officials had warned him passing the bill “could close down all the airports in Texas,” which he regarded as a ‘heavy handed threat’ by the federal government.
The staff of Rep. David Simpson said the DOJ had “thrown down the gauntlet” in using such stark language to oppose the bill.
“Either Texas backs off and continues to let government employees fondle innocent women, children and men as a condition of travel,” the staff wrote, “or the TSA [Transportation Safety Administration] has the authority to cancel flights or series of flights.”
HB 1937, a bill that would have made it “A criminal act for security personnel to touch a person’s private areas without probable cause as a condition of travel or as a condition of entry into a public place,” was headed for an imminent Senate vote in Texas having already passed the House unanimously 138-0, before the federal government stepped in to nix the legislation.
In a letter sent to Texas lawmakers, including to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Speaker Joe Straus, the House Clerk, and the Senate Secretary, U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy threatened to cripple the airline industry in the state if legislators did not back down.
“If HR [sic] 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute,” Murphy wrote. “Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”
“We urge that you consider the ramifications of this bill before casting your vote,” Murphy added.
The fact that Murphy can’t even get the name of the bill correct is almost as disconcerting as the rampant mafia-like attitude of the DOJ in using de facto economic terrorism to shoot down the legislation.
Following a fiery debate in the Texas House last night, Senate sponsor Dan Patrick (R-Houston) pulled the bill, remarking that TSA representatives had been “lobbying” the Texas Senate in an effort to mothball the legislation.
“I will pull HB 1937 down, but I will stand for Liberty in the state of Texas,” Patrick said.
Patrick added that TSA officials had warned him passing the bill “could close down all the airports in Texas,” which he regarded as a ‘heavy handed threat’ by the federal government.
The staff of Rep. David Simpson said the DOJ had “thrown down the gauntlet” in using such stark language to oppose the bill.
“Either Texas backs off and continues to let government employees fondle innocent women, children and men as a condition of travel,” the staff wrote, “or the TSA [Transportation Safety Administration] has the authority to cancel flights or series of flights.”
“… 97 percent of people who go though the nation’s airports do not go through these offensive searches. And yet, a United States Attorney warns that flights to Texas could be shut down because TSA would not be able to ensure the safety of passengers and crew if agents could not touch genitals. Someone must make a stand against the atrocities of our government agents …”
In a point by point refutation of the DOJ letter, Simpson compared the battle against the TSA to the Texas revolutionary war against Mexico, writing, “Gentlemen, we find ourselves at such a watershed moment today. The federal government is attempting to deprive the citizens of Texas of their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 9, of the Texas Constitution. If we do not stand up for our citizens in the face of this depravation of their personal rights and dignity, who will?”
The fact that the Department of Justice and the TSA have resorted to threats of economic terrorism in addition to underhanded lobbying techniques again illustrates the fact that the federal government is increasingly behaving like a criminal enterprise with total disregard for the Constitution.
The TSA’s initial response to HB 1937 was to claim that it could not become law because it violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2), a law that the TSA claimed “prevents states from regulating the federal government.”
In reality, this was a complete fabrication.
“The statement is false. Ignorance from the TSA is unlikely, so I’ll call a spade a spade. They’re lying. The supremacy clause says nothing of the sort,” reported Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center.
Here’s the full text:
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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
“So, in simple terms, what does the supremacy clause mean? Just what it says. The constitution is supreme. And any federal laws made in line with the constitution is supreme. Nothing more, nothing less,” writes Boldin.
Comment