Rand Paul detained by TSA

[jasonxe]

on rp facebook.

Free Rand Paul!!!

[floridasun1983]

Wow....this is a brazen (and foolish) move by the TSA.

[flightlesskiwi]

whiskey tango foxtrot.

[eduardo89]

whiskey tango foxtrot.

WTF!

[Muwahid]

First brown people now Senators who oppose tyranny

[brushfire]

So it begins...

[flightlesskiwi]

So it begins...

should make for an excellent Rand Paul speech on the floor...

that few will hear and fewer will care about. :mad:

[ZanZibar]

Art I Sec 6: Section 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

[blazeKing]

It's on Drudge

[swissaustrian]

Art I Sec 6: Section 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
Matt C, I'm sure the campaign is using this for Ron's campaign?
I posted a suggestion to do this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?354669-Rand-beeing-detained-by-the-TSA-HUGE-political-opportunity

[eduardo89]

Art I Sec 6: Section 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

Does not apply here. Read what you've copy/pasted. It only applies to actions during their attendance at the session of their respective House. The courts have ruled on this immunity before and it's very, very narrow. It's called the "Speech or Debate Clause" and is intended to prevent a President or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the President might disagree. It is not immunity from detention, arrest or prosecution.


Members of the United States Congress enjoy a similar parliamentary privilege as members of the British Parliament; that is, they cannot be prosecuted for anything they say on the floor of the House or Senate. They also enjoy the right to be present in Congress: that is, they may be in prison or jail the rest of the time, but they have the right to attend Congressional sessions, speak on the floor, vote, etc. These rights are specified in the Constitution and have been fairly uncontroversial in U.S. history. Courts have consistently interpreted them very narrowly.


Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.

[LibertyEagle]

Does not apply here. Read what you've copy/pasted. It only applies to actions during their attendance at the session of their respective House. The courts have ruled on this immunity before and it's very, very narrow. It's called the "Speech or Debate Clause" and is intended to prevent a President or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the President might disagree. It is not immunity from detention, arrest or prosecution.

My understanding is that he was heading to D.C. to the Senate floor, so it damn well DOES apply.

[eduardo89]

My understanding is that he was heading to D.C. to the Senate floor, so it damn well DOES apply.

His detainment had nothing to do with official legislative business. The immunity does not apply here. I don't agree with the TSA at all, but if he sued it'd be thrown out right away. The courts have been very specific about what the clause actually means and it would not apply here. It's like saying he couldn't be pulled over by the cops even if he was driving with a bottle of vodka in one hand and joint in the other if he was on his way to Capitol Hill.

[affa]

His detainment had nothing to do with official legislative business. The immunity does not apply here. I don't agree with the TSA at all, but if he sued it'd be thrown out right away. The courts have been very specific about what the clause actually means and it would not apply here. It's like saying he couldn't be pulled over by the cops even if he was driving with a bottle of vodka in one hand and joint in the other if he was on his way to Capitol Hill.

it's actually nothing like saying that.

as far as the reading of the Constitution you offer... if a Congressman is on his way to vote, and his opponents want to stop him, they need to make sure he's early in his trip to DC, just not within 100 feet of the building?

[torchbearer]

His detainment had nothing to do with official legislative business. The immunity does not apply here. I don't agree with the TSA at all, but if he sued it'd be thrown out right away. The courts have been very specific about what the clause actually means and it would not apply here. It's like saying he couldn't be pulled over by the cops even if he was driving with a bottle of vodka in one hand and joint in the other if he was on his way to Capitol Hill.

the machine did have an anomaly. when he went through later- nothing beeped. but instead of allowing him just to go through again- the insisted on violating his 4th amendment again to a degree he objected to. they then escorted him to a little room where he was to stay until police came to escort him out. detained.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

We need to use this for all the free press its worth.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMYNg9twKYA&feature=player_embedded

[texasbelle]

Brooke Baldwin tweeted that she will be reporting on this story at 2pm ET on CNN.

[ZanZibar]

His detainment had nothing to do with official legislative business. That has nothing to do with it. The Constitution doesn't use that as a qualifier as to whether or not detainment on the way to business is legal.

[torchbearer]

That has nothing to do with it. The Constitution doesn't use that as a qualifier as to whether or not detainment on the way to business is legal.

perhaps we can have charges made against the tsa? if an agency breaks the law stated in the constitution, who prosecutes?

[mconder]

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their
Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the
United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and
Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance
at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning
from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall
not be questioned in any other Place.


"He wasn't arrested" It would be interesting to see what they would do if he just kept walking to his flight.

[bolil]

I expect it would have involved a tazer. Pretty absurd story though, maybe the TSA agent that looked at his naked body got jealous at his liberty enhanced cohones...

[torchbearer]

"He wasn't arrested" It would be interesting to see what they would do if he just kept walking to his flight.

detainment is arrest. he was prevented from going or leaving.

[Krugerrand]

detainment is arrest. he was prevented from going or leaving.

It sure makes you wonder how the TSA's definition of "Detained" reads! :eek: "He wasn't "detained" ... we didn't bring out the waterboard."

[Gaddafi Duck]

This whole thing reminds me of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith...when the senator is trying to get back to the Jedi Temple and the stormtrooper points the gun at him and tells him, "I'm sorry, sir, it's time to go."

And so it is.

[cheapseats]

There are several threads on this, so thin-skinned will kindly note I voice an adversarial opinion NOT in the 40-page 11,000-view SENSATION.

Y'all have a lotta new Members, which is theoretically good.

You gotta admit, tho, the number of DISPARAGING &/OR DISCOURAGING thread titles begun by New-ish Members has lately been CONSPICUOUS. Moreover, there is some indication that a significant percent of sincere New-ish members are college-age or foreign. No, I got nuthin' against Students or Foreigners...unless they connive for ME to underwrite their Happiness. But Youth ARE inexperienced, comparatively speaking, and Foreigners are comparatively inexperienced about BEING AMERICAN.

Ron Paul languishes with Seniors, Baby Boomers & Women, CORRECT?

Do we see Seniors, Baby Boomers & Women demonstrating against TSA? No we do not, or TPTB behind DHS wouldn't dare EXPAND. Which they are doing.

Why THIS battle, and why NOW?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for MAKING it a battle...I DON'T FLY. I boycott AIR TRAVEL. It is a great loss, and a great win. SURE, this battle, now, if Campaigns/Politicians/Activists wanna start WORKING THE AIRPORTS instead of HURRYING OVER AMERICA, if throngs are finally willing to hold what to me is a clear line in the sand: I WILL NOT BE DEGRADED LIKE THIS. But that's not our story.

People are MAKING EXCUSES FOR RAND SIGNING NDAA . . . 'cuz, y'know, ya gotta play the game . . . but somehow THIS is principled?

Consider the possibility of BAD ADVICE. Ron Paul going home right before Iowa & New Hampshire? BAD ADVICE. My opinion.

People who say ANY PRESS IS GOOD PRESS are mistaken. SOME people can play that game. Dennis Rodman. Newt Gingrich. NOT Ron Paul.

Yes yes, LIBERTY. Yes yes, OVER-REACH. But Ron Paul needs to TAKE COMMAND of issues he AND OTHERS have finally insinuated into the circus-like Public Dialogue. Better SOMEONE actually implements some of what Voters can finally HEAR, than Ron Paul continually lurching out front on what (however much you or I disagree) A CLEAR MAJORITY does not value as Frontrunner Concern.

Unless they are willing to play the PROFILING IS EFFICIENT card, which I highly doubt, this incident should be dispatched with swift statements about HUMAN DIGNITY, GOVERNMENT OVER-REACH & SILLY SPENDING, relegating it to a GROWING LIST of insults while returning to the more widely relevant theme of INCREASED TSA EXPENDITURES JUXTAPOSED WITH RHETORIC ABOUT SPENDING CUTS.

EPISODES like this, whether internal stunt or external incident, play mainly to the ALREADY CONVERTED.

If it's not Bad Advice, it's BUTTON PRESSING to get a rise outta Bible Clinging Gun Thumpers . . . all the MORE reason not to take the bait.

[torchbearer]

There are several threads on this, so thin-skinned will kindly note I voice an adversarial opinion NOT in the 40-page 11,000-view SENSATION.

Y'all have a lotta new Members, which is theoretically good.

You gotta admit, tho, the number of DISPARAGING &/OR DISCOURAGING thread titles begun by New-ish Members has lately been CONSPICUOUS. Moreover, there is some indication that a significant percent of sincere New-ish members are college-age or foreign.

newer members don't have the wisdom of the long view of the fight for liberty. i've been doing this for 16 years, and never would i have thought in my lifetime that we'd have such a huge passionate following of people across the world. each year, we are growing. the forces of tyranny are shrinking.
newbs want immediate gratification. they want it all now without knowing it will be a long hard fight to ever win this country back.

[Paul Fan]

That has nothing to do with it. The Constitution doesn't use that as a qualifier as to whether or not detainment on the way to business is legal.

I agree with this. If the courts have ruled otherwise then they are wrong. (And anything less than a Supreme Court case isn't even worth discussing.)

[eduardo89]

the machine did have an anomaly. when he went through later- nothing beeped. but instead of allowing him just to go through again- the insisted on violating his 4th amendment again to a degree he objected to. they then escorted him to a little room where he was to stay until police came to escort him out. detained.

I'm not defending the TSA, body scanners, pat downs and other gross violations of the 4th amendment. I'm arguing though, with various SCOTUS rulings to back me up, that the Speeches and Debates Clause does not apply here. People are just bending it ex's use it suits their defense of Rand. It's really hypocritical because we always accuse the federal government of doing the exact same thing with the commerce and general welfare clauses.

[eduardo89]

I agree with this. If the courts have ruled otherwise then they are wrong. (And anything less than a Supreme Court case isn't even worth discussing.)

Gravel v United States explicitly stated that the immunity only goes as far as legislative business and cannot be used as a defense for unrelated laws. TSA patdowns, like it or not, have no direct impact on legislative business, the "detention" was not done to prevent him from reaching DC and voting and until Congress or a court does something about it are constitutional (sadly not going to happen anytime soon).

[torchbearer]

I'm not defending the TSA, body scanners, pat downs and other gross violations of the 4th amendment. I'm arguing though, with various SCOTUS rulings to back me up, that the Speeches and Debates Clause does not apply here. People are just bending it ex's use it suits their defense of Rand. It's really hypocritical because we always accuse the federal government of doing the exact same thing with the commerce and general welfare clauses.


he wasn't going to d.c. as a senator, but as a visitor?

[cheapseats]

newer members don't have the wisdom of the long view of the fight for liberty.


Some new members, some longtime members, some young people, some "old" people DO take a comprehensive view of Liberty and a long view of the fight, and some new members, some longtime members, some young people, some "old" people DO take a limited view of Liberty and a short view of the fight.

Some new-ish members are NOT friends of the Moovement, period.




i've been doing this for 16 years, and never would i have thought in my lifetime that we'd have such a huge passionate following of people across the world. each year, we are growing. ]

Seventh year, full-time, uncompensated. I ABSOLUTELY expect results in my lifetime. Martyrdom is overrated as both goal and experience.



the forces of tyranny are shrinking.

Evidence to the contrary abounds. Including the detention of a sitting United States Senator by, I speculate not wildly, someone with a high school diploma.



newbs want immediate gratification. they want it all now without knowing it will be a long hard fight to ever win this country back.

Some Newbies, some NOT NEW Supporters want exactly what they want, when they want it, and nuthin' else. NO ONE BUT RON PAUL increases the likelihood of Freedom Fighters nailing a couple planks in the platform, and I'm all for THAT, but it is NOT making friends and influencing people for Ron Paul. That is my experience.

[torchbearer]

Some new members, some longtime members, some young people, some "old" people DO take a comprehensive view of Liberty and a long view of the fight, and some new members, some longtime members, some young people, some "old" people DO take a limited view of Liberty and a short view of the fight.

Some new-ish members are NOT friends of the Moovement, period.



]

Seventh year, full-time, uncompensated. I ABSOLUTELY expect results in my lifetime. Martyrdom is overrated as both goal and experience.




Evidence to the contrary abounds. Including the detention of a sitting United States Senator by, I speculate not wildly, someone with a high school diploma.




Some Newbies, some NOT NEW Supporters want exactly what they want, when they want it, and nuthin' else. NO ONE BUT RON PAUL increases the likelihood of Freedom Fighters nailing a couple planks in the platform, and I'm all for THAT, but it is NOT making friends and influencing people for Ron Paul. That is my experience.


sometimes a whatever and invisible face palm is a person can imagine.
i think i'm going to find a hut in the middle of no where and let you figure it out.

[cheapseats]

sometimes a whatever and invisible face palm is a person can imagine.

I'm sure you meant what you think you said.



i think i'm going to find a hut in the middle of no where and let you figure it out.

Sixteen years in, THAT'S your two cents on the possibility that Ron Paul's IMPASSIONED supporters are being played? What, like that's NEVER happened?

WHILE WE ARE SABER-RATTLING over the Strait of Hormuz in an OIL=LIFEBLOOD drama is not GOOD TIMING for this showdown. Public sentiment HAS PROVEN ITSELF highly susceptible to fear-mongering.

[torchbearer]

I'm sure you meant what you think you said.




Sixteen years in, THAT'S your two cents on the possibility that Ron Paul's IMPASSIONED supporters are being played? What, like that's NEVER happened?

WHILE WE ARE SABER-RATTLING over the Strait of Hormuz in an OIL=LIFEBLOOD drama is not GOOD TIMING for this showdown. Public sentiment HAS PROVEN ITSELF highly susceptible to fear-mongering.

16 years have taught me that with some world constructs it better just to walk away. no reason will work.

[slamhead]

Gravel v United States explicitly stated that the immunity only goes as far as legislative business and cannot be used as a defense for unrelated laws. TSA patdowns, like it or not, have no direct impact on legislative business, the "detention" was not done to prevent him from reaching DC and voting and until Congress or a court does something about it are constitutional (sadly not going to happen anytime soon).

You need to take a look at the case you are citing. It applies to "Speech and debate clause" and affirms that the clause extends to congressional aides "only" in the course of their legislative duties.


Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.

Majority ruling by SCOTUS.


In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the privileges of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides. Rejecting the reasoning of the court of appeals and substituting its own, "...the privilege available to the aide is confined to those services that would be immune legislative conduct if performed by the Senator himself," the Court declared.[7] However, the Court refused to protect congressional aides from prosecution for criminal conduct, or from testifying at trials or grand jury proceedings involving third-party crimes.[8] The Supreme Court also threw out the lower courts' order permitting some questions and barring others, concluding that if the testimony is privileged then the privilege is absolute.[9]

However, the Court upheld the district court's ruling regarding private publication. "[Private] publication by Senator Gravel through the cooperation of Beacon Press was in no way essential to the deliberations of the Senate; nor does questioning as to private publication threaten the integrity or independence of the Senate by impermissibly exposing its deliberations to executive influence

This case had to do with the publishing of the Pentagon Papers. They went after an aide that arranged their publishing in a news paper. I think under todays laws the aide would be protected under the whistle blower laws.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

newer members don't have the wisdom of the long view of the fight for liberty. i've been doing this for 16 years, and never would i have thought in my lifetime that we'd have such a huge passionate following of people across the world. each year, we are growing. the forces of tyranny are shrinking.
newbs want immediate gratification. they want it all now without knowing it will be a long hard fight to ever win this country back.

Well said.