Thoughts and update on Castillo TSA video

This last week proved a whirlwind.

On Wednesday, I came across a video made by former Miss U.S.A. Susie Castillo after undergoing an invasive pat-down search at the DFW airport. You can read the article and watch the video for yourself here.

A few thoughts as I have had time to sit back and digest the entire incident.

First off, I think the TSA provides the starkest, most obvious illustration of constitutional overreach today. Regardless of political orientation, most people intuitively recognize that x-ray scanners and pat-downs involving  genitalia touching crosses the line. If there is any hope in awakening Americans to the daily assault on their liberties, this is it.

That said, some people still don’t get it.

“I am glad to get pat down if it means that everyone else will too. I also let my doctor ‘violate’ me for the same reason–to protect my health. As an American, I enjoy but do not exercise my right not to go to a doctor and not to fly. It is silly for me to insist that I have the ‘right’ to get on a commercial flight without proving I am a safe passenger,” Daniel wrote in the comments section on the story.

Telling me the TSA doesn’t violate my rights because I don’t have to fly is a little like locking me in a room and claiming I’m still free because you didn’t put me in a straight jacket.


Make States the Final Decider of the Constitution a Reality

A recent court decision has ruled that the president can use money to fund stem cell research which is something I find blatantly unconstitutional because it is congress that decides how to spend the money. It says that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law” which means that every dollar spent is spent according to the law and not according to Obama’s will which is what the court ruled. The court has seem to forgotten (and quite conveniently) that it is congress that decides how money is spent and not any other branch of the government.

It may seems that the only thing that we can do is pray that the courts come to their senses but if the people in congress actually read the constitution they would realize that they have a special power in article III Section 2 that allows them to create exceptions for what cases the federal courts can preside over. It states “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make” which gives congress the ability narrow the range of cases of which then can hear. This was done to make sure that the federal courts can’t re-invent the law as they see fit since congress can remove their power to preside over what they establish as an exception. Its meant as a check on the federal court system which reminds them that the law means what congress says it means. This may fly in the face of proponents of living constitution theory but the courts are not empowered to interpret the law in any manor that is inconsistent with the intended meaning of the legislators that crafted it intended.