The TSA Has Erased The Constitution To Make It Easier To Violate Your Rights
John Brennan, who stripped naked at a TSA checkpoint to protest, was found "Not Guilty" of public indecency. But, writes Lisa Simeone at TSA News Blog:
Not content with that ruling, the TSA pushed on, charging Brennan with "interefering with the screening process." This week, a judge sided with the TSA:WHEREFORE: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, after consideration of this record, that a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 1540.109 is found PROVED and a civil penalty in the amount of five hundred and dollars ($500) is ASSESSED.Granted, it was a reduction of the fine the TSA wanted ($1,000), but it still doesn't favor Brennan. The judge in the case is the Hon. George J. Jordan, a U.S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge (don't ask me what the Coast Guard has to do with anything).
As Brennan reports on his aptly named Facebook page, Naked American Hero, he's planning to appeal.
. . . Brennan expects an unfavorable decision, but believes his actions will not be the cause. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 removes Constitutional defenses for defendants at the initial hearing phase of the legal proceeding. Said another way, jurisdiction of Federal judges for ruling on Constitutional defenses has been removed by the TSA. Mr. Brennan was using his affirmed First Amendment right to protest violations of his percieved 4th Amendment rights. If Mr. Brennan loses this round, he will appeal. TSA contends that disrobing posed a security threat.
Right -- a threat to the emotional security of the TSA management and workers that Americans will docilely comply as their rights and bodies are violated in the pretense of security. Every time you comply as your rights are being violated, or don't at least protest afterward, you make it that much easier for the next rights grab and the next.
Simeone notes:
Brennan, in fact, proved that TSA procedures have nothing to do with security. If they did, he would've been allowed to board his flight after irrefutably demonstrating that he wasn't harboring any weapons, explosives, or incendiaries, the only things the TSA is allowed to search for.In other words, he was safe. He should've been cleared. Instead, he was arrested.
What Cost Guard has to do with it is that the Coast Guard is a Part of Dept. of Homeland Security and thus in the same department as the TSA.
Carl Pietrantonio at April 4, 2014 7:37 AM
So the TSA went mullah shopping until they found one who would issue the fatwa they sought.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 4, 2014 8:00 AM
Gog, it's worse than that... An "administrative law judge" is not a real judge, in the sense that "judge" implies a member of the judicial branch(*). Administrative law judges are employees of the prosecuting executive-branch agency. There is nothing stopping the agency, in this case the TSA, from simply ordering the admin law judge to rule the way they want, under threat of disciplinary action.
(*) It is my understanding that federal courts are charged with "overseeing" the admin law judges. However, it is also my understanding that this almost never actually happens.
Cousin Dave at April 4, 2014 9:40 AM
The Portland International Airport is considered a port of entry. So that brings the U.S. Coast Guard in as the legal authority on the property.
Jim P. at April 4, 2014 10:22 AM
Gog, it's worse than that... An "administrative law judge" is not a real judge, in the sense that "judge" implies a member of the judicial branch(*). Administrative law judges are employees of the prosecuting executive-branch agency. There is nothing stopping the agency, in this case the TSA, from simply ordering the admin law judge to rule the way they want, under threat of disciplinary action.
(*) It is my understanding that federal courts are charged with "overseeing" the admin law judges. However, it is also my understanding that this almost never actually happens.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at April 4, 2014 9:40 AM
The constitution, and constitutional protections only apply to criminal court, and most felony charges.
There are a lot of law school graduates who don't clearly understand this.
This is a mistake, and one that has allowed the federal bureaucracy to run rough shod over everything.
Smaller government would be a good start in reducing the power of these agencies.
Isab at April 4, 2014 4:02 PM
I believe the Constitution does apply to civil cases, except if one is requesting free legal representation. Such is available only in criminal cases. Sixth Amendment
Drontil at April 5, 2014 4:03 AM
I believe the Constitution does apply to civil cases, except if one is requesting free legal representation. Such is available only in criminal cases. Sixth Amendment
Posted by: Drontil at April 5, 2014 4:03 AM
True, I should have been more specific.
In a few civil cases like when one state sues another over water rights, for example, there are constitutional issues raised but those issues always involve a state actor.
But you have no constitutional rights being violated in an administrative search like the TSA conducts.
In fact this is the reason why the TSA screens people randomly, and arbitrarily, without focusing in on young men of middle eastern descent. Because if they did screen by ethnicity, they might be in violation of anti discrimination laws.
Isab at April 5, 2014 2:50 PM
Leave a comment