Texas House to the TSA: You are Nullified!

  • Share on Tumblr

Update - the bill passed a 2nd reading on May 12th. The third and final vote, on may 13th had the bill passing by a vote of 138-0. It now moves on to the Senate.

While states across the country are considering and passing bills to reject or nullify what many see as federal overreach in areas like health care, gun rights, medical marijuana, and more, the Texas State House struck a resounding blow tonight by becoming the nation’s first legislative body to pass a TSA nullification bill.

House Bill 1937, introduced by Representative David Simpson, seeks to ban searches by TSA (and other) agents “without probable cause” as the 4th amendment requires. It states, in part:

A person who is a public servant [acting under color of his office or employment] commits an offense if the person:

(2) while acting under color of the person’s office or employment without probable cause to believe the other person committed an offense:

(A)  performs a search for the purpose of granting access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation;

Even though reports from groups such as The Foundation for a Free Society, Texans for Accountable Government, and Libertarian Longhorns all indicate that the House passed HB1937 “passed by a unanimous voice vote at approximately 11pm this evening,” there’s still what many consider to be a tough battle in the Senate ahead.

NULLIFICATION?

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law. In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

HB1937 explicitly includes the interposition principle by making searches without warrant an offense in the state, theoretically requiring the sheriff or state police to arrest the progress of such acts.

ON TO THE SENATE

Even though Senate passage might be an uphill battle, Simpson remained positive in an update to supporters, saying, “HB 1937 passed second reading in the Texas House this evening. I would like to thank the many Texans and Americans around the country for their support and prayers. May God continue to grant favor to this effort in the Texas Senate and with the Governor. For Texas and Liberty.”

Norman Horn of Libertarian Longhorns seemed even more upbeat. “One step closer to victory!”. And, Heather Fazio of Texans for Accountable Government shared her expectations as well, “It’ll be referred to a senate committee then we make sure it passes there…”

NEXT STEPS

Also being considered in the Texas legislature is another of Simpson’s bills to nullify the TSA, HB1938, which would ban the use of body scanners in all Texas airports. Stay tuned to this website for updates on both legislative efforts. And, click here to track all TSA nullification bills around the country.

Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect to see at least 10 other states consider such legislation in 2012. Should it pass in Texas, we expect that number to be significantly higher…putting the TSA square in the crosshairs of a rapidly growing movement to reject unconstitutional federal acts on a state level.

About Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter - @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?
16 comments
Donna Fallis
Donna Fallis

As with Indiana, the extortion tactics of this administration must stop...I'm proud to be a Texan!!! Now, let's see the other states tell the puppet tyrant "Hell NO!!"

sean
sean

Thank you, Texas. Somebody had to take a stand. I'm glad it was you.

badtux99
badtux99

Yawn.William Tecumseh Sherman pretty much nullified the 10th Amendment when he burned and raped his way across South Carolina to punish them for putting state supremacy ahead of federal government supremacy. I'm seeing nothing saying this is going to be any more enforcible than South Carolina's declaration of secession from the Union was. Well, South Carolina managed to enforce their secession from the Union for four years, but we all know what happened there in the end... as Governor Earl Long of Louisiana is reputed to have said when the Lege urged him to defy a Federal desegregation order in 1958, "Are you %#$! nuts?! We're talking about the U.S. government, they got the #$!@ atomic bomb!" Little Rock 1957. Just sayin'. Airborne! They kinda outgun and out-man the Texas Rangers, yo.

Gary Henderson
Gary Henderson

You've expressed what is probably everybody's bottom line reaction: "But what can we do? They have guns!"

Actually, Texas' action is exactly what's needed to enable/encourage the county sheriffs to act on our behalf, defending citizens against attack ... by anyone, including federal representatives doing unauthorized things. Because "they have guns," it is the States, not just individual citizens, that must step up to their proper role, as Jefferson et al explained they must.

And until the Constitution is changed by the prescribed method, it has not been changed. Not even decades of wrong-headed Court conclusions can change it; as Washington said, until it is changed by the people, it has not been changed.

Think of it this way. We're not talking about secession. We're talking about getting a hired hand back inside his job description. We want more law-abidin', not less. He works for us, and if he pulls a gun (bomb, whatever) against his employer (us), then everything must change. And it can.

badtux99
badtux99

I was being a bit hyperbolic about the 101st Airborne, 'cause the TSA doesn't need that to shut down an airport. They just declare a security emergency, and the airport is shut down until they say it's safe to open. They do it all the time, though usually just for short periods of time while there is a "security scare" (OMG! Someone forgot their suitcase in the restroom! Run, panic, scream, hide!). If the TSA tells the FAA, "George H.W. Bush Houston International is closed until we can do a proper screening of everyone who passes through it", it's *closed* -- and because the Constitution gives the Federal government complete control over interstate commerce, and everything flying out of GHWBHI is interstate or can be flown interstate, there's not much that can be done about it *short of changing the federal law to prohibit these searches*. Which should be easy to do considering that the U.S. House of Representatives is run by Republicans, who care about individual rights, right? (I crack myself up sometimes, heh!).

All that this state law is doing is meaningless posturing, because no Texas Ranger is ever going to arrest a TSA agent for doing whatever a TSA agent is directed to do in the course of his duty as a Federal officer, because the consequences -- the complete shutdown of a major city's airport for the duration -- would create economic consequences that would cause the Texas business community to blanch from tip of their custom leather cowboy hat down to the tippy toes of their rattlesnake cowboy boots. My preference is for meaningful action, not for meaningless posturing. If Texas's legislators want to strut around pushing their chests out and proclaiming "I'm bad, I'm bad" with this act of symbolic defiance, fine. But we got a word for that in the World: Poseurs. When the tip of the spear comes anywhere near them, they're outta here. Good riddance.

badtux99
badtux99

Well, good luck with that one. As far as I know, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi is still walking around a free man, despite murdering Vicki Weaver and being indicted for such by an Idaho court. The Feds waved the "sovereign immunity" card around, a Federal judge ordered the case removed to Federal court, and of course, the Supremes ruled that a state cannot prosecute a Federal officer who is performing his job under the rules and policies at the time. Like I said, posturing. I'll say different the moment Lon Horiuchi sees the inside of a jail cell.

Gary Henderson
Gary Henderson

- Nice avatar. Linux fan?
- Actually, it's the county sheriff, not the Rangers. Ref www.SheriffMack.com. So contact your Sheriff and get the conversation started! We'll see! Thanks for your encouragement. ;0)
- And the interstate clause doesn't do that, actually. Another conversation.
- I think they passed law, not resolution ("meaningful action, not meaningless posturing"), so it will empower local action, and TSA would be putting its employees at risk of criminal charges. Again, we'll see.

Ran
Ran

Proud to be a Texan! Way to go. Keep up the good fight and please do not stop with just the TSA!!!

Pete Sagi
Pete Sagi

Why the 10th ammendment nullification approach is flawed and what the TSA is likely to do

The nullification approach, as noble as it is as far as its intended goal, is flawed. Why? Because of federal subsidies to the states. Whatever the federal govt. subsidizes it gains a right of regulation over. Federal funding to a state is like a tampon ... it comes with a string attached and has the design purpose of becoming a bloody mess and getting flushed down a toilet. If a state wants to assert its sovereignty over the federal govt. it has to stop acting like a child on a parental allowance and reject all federal funds.

The TSAholes will continue to act like the TSAholes they are and Texas will back down, and for the above reason ... even in Texas, the politicians are not likely to pass on federal money, and federal money WILL be threatened when it comes to a showdown over the TSA gropings. I sincerely HOPE that I am wrong, but I doubt it.

Pete

adbirds
adbirds

That's how it has to happen.

Here's another one for you: I can honestly tell you that an airline station manager I know personally - about 75 years old - in Houston (IAH/AA) - is on the No Fly list. Airline personnel with RAMP ACCESS to the aircraft are on the NO FLY list too; all for no good reason. Repeal that !

Dan
Dan

Congratulations to Texas! It's one example of how effective nullification can be against a tyrannical runaway government. It illustrates we the people, who are the fourth and most powerful branch of government, are the final authority as to what is or is not Constitutional instead of the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches.

I respectfully disagree with the Tenth Amendment Center's definition of Nullification: "is when a state nullifies federal law". A Congressional act is not law if it violates the Constitution. Clearly these searches violate the Fourth Amendment at the very least. and therefore is not law. Nullification is the states and the people's power to negate an Unconstitutional act of the federal government. Nullification ensures and compels the federal government to comply with the Constitution.

The James Madison passage regarding compacts maybe incorrectly cited. A compact as defined by Article 1 Section 10 is an agreement between two or more states. A compact requires consent of Congress. The above article does not mention if the Texas legislation requires the state to enter into an agreement/compact withe other states. If the legislation does not require reaching agreement's with one or more other states, then it is not a compact, in which case Madison's quote does not apply . It is in this case is nullification as it merely reasserts Texas's 10th Amendment rights. If the Texas legislation seeks a compact then it is not nullification for the reason stated in the previous sentence.

A compact would not only likely defeat the purpose of nullification but also set a very dangerous precedent. Such an action would be asking permission for one or more states to reassert their 10 Amendment rights from the very government who knowingly and willingly violated those rights. It would be a tacit admission to the federal government that they have expansive powers and the states and the people have limited powers thereby tacitly allowing violation of the Fourth Amendment as it pertains to this case. This is anathema to the limited federal government principles the founding fathers instilled in the Constitution. Nullification reinforces the concept of limited federal government principles.

Jay Stang
Jay Stang

Texas is awesome! Hey Michael Boldin, when are you moving to Texas? Get with the program, dude!

Rich
Rich

Great job TEXAS....Show us all the way...

Deeptoad
Deeptoad

Holy cow, Texas! Way to fight the good fight!!

putsch
putsch

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. PREAMBLE. ARTICLE I. Bill of Rights.- SECTION 1. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government unimpaired to all the States.

Nice to see Texas leading the way towards liberty again and not tyranny. Someone has to fight for the constitution and our rights before they are all taken away.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Texas House of Reps just passed just passed a bill banning TSA searches without probable cause (“A person who is a public servant [acting under color of his office or employment] commits [...]

  2. [...] Texas, where the state house just passed a bill banning TSA searches without probable cause. Click here to read the Tenth Amendment Center’s report on the [...]

  3. [...] Texas, where the state house just passed a bill banning TSA searches without probable cause. Click here to read the Tenth Amendment Center’s report on the [...]

  4. [...] Texas, where the state house just passed a bill banning TSA searches without probable cause. Click here to read the Tenth Amendment Center’s report on the [...]

  5. [...] Texas, where the state house just passed a bill banning TSA searches without probable cause. Click here to read the Tenth Amendment Center’s report on the [...]

  6. [...] Tenth Amendment Center is celebrating the vote as an example of "what James Madison implored states to do when the federal government [...]