When I was traveling to Jacksonville, Fla. for the Nullify Now! event, I posted the following on my Facebook page.
“At CVG. Words don’t exist to describe my disdain for the TSA. On a positive note, we are safe from the blind lady and her seeing-eye dog.”
I think my loathing of TSA stems from the fact that it is probably the most “in your face” encounter I have with overreaching federal power. I know other unconstitutional acts engaged in by the fed probably have more of a detrimental impact on my day-to-day life. But when I am queued up in my stocking feet wondering if I should choose a grope or a scan, it brings unconstitutional federal power right out in the open.
It also probably has something to do with my love of aviation. Flight has always fascinated me. I worked six years in the airline industry, and I thoroughly enjoy air travel. I’m like a kid at the playground when I get to the airport. I just love it – except for the “security.”
On my way home, I was just cranky and annoyed enough to voice my displeasure. I was putting my shoes back on when a TSA agent walked past. I beckoned him over.
“Do you guys swear an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution?” I asked.
He seemed a little taken aback by the question, and asked me what I meant. Then he asked, “What are you getting at?”
I simply repeated my query.
“When you take on the role of TSA agent – when you take on this job – do you swear an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution like other federal employees?
“Honestly, I don’t really remember.”
I was stunned. You don’t remember??? How do you not remember an oath?
In fact, TSA agents DO swear an oath.
I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
And he doesn’t remember.
I suppose it’s fitting, because he certainly doesn’t live by the oath he swore. Sadder still, he went on to tell me he was in the Navy and he did swear an oath when he enlisted. It didn’t seem to mean much more to him than the oath he swore that he doesn’t remember.
We talked for about 10 minutes. I tried to explain my objection to federal airport security, pointing out the lack of constitutional authority in Article 1 Sec. 8. Congress simply has no enumerated power to set up a Transportation Security Administration. Not to mention the Fourth Amendment ramifications. He looked at me like I was from Mars. It was clear he had no clue what Article 1 Sec. 8 says. He swore an oath to uphold a Constitution that he likely never read. He rambled about the Constitution being “outdated,” citing the fact that “the Second Amendment was written during the time of flintlocks.” I reminded him that while technology has certainly changed, the principle remains timeless. Then he tried to sell me on his desire to protect me. I told him better ways had to exist. Oddly, he didn’t argue. Instead, he proceeded to change the subject, going into a short diatribe about teachers’ pay compared to pro athletes and how our country’s priorities are screwed up.
I finally realized I was getting nowhere. I shook his hand and headed for my gate, passing another gaggle of agents heading over to perform secondary gate checks. All I can really say for the man is that he was polite and seemed genuinely interested in hearing me out.
Funny thing, many people hold federal agents in high esteem. We dress them in nice uniforms, sew a badge on their chest, and the public genuflects in reverence.
Why?
Granted, the guy I talked with didn’t appear evil. In fact, he was a pretty friendly feller, and probably a decent human being at heart. But with federal power behind him, he does an abhorrent thing. He violates the natural rights of American citizens day after day. And he turns his back on an oath he swore before God. Centralized power can move normal, decent folks to do terrible things. Ask the Jews who lived in Germany in the 1930s. Or the Ukrainians who lived under Stalin. Or Japanese-Americans who watched WWII through
Does the TSA stoop to this level? Perhaps not…yet.
But Earlier this week, we once again saw how low people sometimes do stoop when hiding behind a badge and the power it represents. A TSA agent at New Jersey’s Newark Airport spotted a sex toy in a passenger’s checked bag during a search and thought it a good idea to leave her a little note.
“Get your freak on girl.”
Creepy.
Disgusting.
Wrong.
Sometimes people tell me I overreact. I should just lay off it. Accept it. Don’t make waves. But if I accept this, what will they force on me next? TSA searches on the highways?
I can’t help but think of the words of Frederick Douglass every time I approach the dreaded TSA checkpoint.
“Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.”
Get your freak on girl.
No core values is the problem….I work with a guy who is going through training with the Police Acadamy.
His instructor wanted to give an example of integrity. He had everyone stand in the room & should sit when what they heard was over stepping their values….."I am sleeping with your wife" 3 cadets sat down
"I sleeping with your wife & another man" no one sat down…."I'm sleeping with your 16 year old daughter"
they all sat down but 3 hesitated. This is the low moral state we have come to. Any wonder we are losing
our nation.
Well, Art 1, Sec 8 allows Congress to raise "armies" (plural)… One could loosely mean this to say that TSA is just one "army" rasied to provide for the common defense. As much as I dislike the TSA and HOW they are going about doing their job, I believe the TSA is a constitutional body (in form and purpose — save the capability to unionize).
Where the TSA has violated their charter is by maintaining writs of assistance in violation of the 4th Amendment.
Further, the Constitutional enumeration to maintain post roads also implies the requirement to secure them (where necessary). The modern civil aviation network is a logical outgrowth of a modern definition of federal post roads and should be defended. Insomuch as TSA is established to secure commercial aviation routes, then this means they are a constitutional body. How they go about providing that security and their failure to recognize — let alone allow — the right of flying public and aircrews to defend themselves is what is unconstitutional.
If the public will only rise up and stage an "Occupy the Security Checkpoints" campaign — through mass civil disobedience — this abuse will likely end. A little help from the state authorities would also be appreciated.
Read: The 5000-Year Leap.
Actually no. a Post road was a very specific type of road. Not ALL roads. For more detail on this specific issue, please reference pages 96-97 of the book, The Original Constitution.
the TSA functions and exists NOTHING like armies that were authorized by the constitution. These are military forces – that were built to repel foreign invasions. Not even close.
Anyone wanting to understand this more? Start by recognizing that if – like any legal document – the words of the constitution mean today what they meant when ratified…..then one needs to understand the meaning of the words at that moment of ratification.
Armies – just look it up in an 18th century dictionary. Dictionary of the english language is a decent one – samuel johnson – available free on google books.
TSA an Army by Constitutional definition? Ummm. No.
Not Impressed says: __November 1, 2011 at 10:51 am I am appalled and ashamed to see the type of comments elicited by this article__You have got to be kidding..you are appalled at the comments this artical generated. How about being appalled at the fact that this is by far once of the most intrucive invassion of privacey ever forced on any Society…let along it happening in the U.S. ..Do you realize just how detailed of a veiw the person opperating the scanners have of the persons body as they pass threw the scanner, and if you opt to have the pat down I hope you enjoy your testicals fondled
You forgot to mention that the agent that left the "get your freak on…" message was terminated.
That the employee was fired is Immaterial…
That the employee thought they could even get away with it tells us a great deal about the culture the TSA is breeding and the types of people they are hiring…a sheer lack of standards.
The TSA culture is of course deeply rooted in the TSA's unconstitutional "writ of assistance" (Google it and check out the history behind writs of assistance).
Human nature is not perfectable…no matter what type of badge one pins on an individual. Once authority without checks and balances is granted to a bureaucracy, there is no end to the level of abuse that WILL occur.
It can easily be argued that the TSA is constitutional under the Commerce Clause. As to the fourth amendment, the operative term is "unreasonable" searches. With shoe bombers and underwear bombers is it unreasonable to check for those things? It can also be said that you have the privilege of flying, not a right to fly.
Hypothetically, if one could choose between TSA protected and non-inspected flights, which do you think the terrorists would choose? How about the public?
Do you have a better means of protecting the flying public? If so, please share. If you think profiling is the answer you are dead wrong. Why? When you profile you will likely catch 100% of those that fit the profile. But you will be so busy looking for those that fit the profile you will miss those that do not fit the profile. The Israeli model cannot be adapted to the US; we have too many airports, too many flights and a very a heterogeneous or diverse population. Would Timothy McVeigh fit the Israeli profile. Nope.
Offer some alternatives instead of just trying to make money off of people through fear-mongering.
easily? how is that? And can you make your easily-done argument fit with what the FOUNDERS had to say about the commerce clause – not just case law?
I can assure you in advance – no – is the answer to that question.
Madison related the commerce clause to transportation as well as exchange of goods. Congress was given the right to regulate navigable water ways. Do you think if flight had existed the founding fathers would have given congress the authority over navigable waters and NOT the airways. (Watch your logic here. We now have an air force that was not envisioned by our founding fathers. )
By the way, the commerce clause is an enumerated power. In addition to the Commerce clause you have the Necessary and Proper Clause which is very vague and was written by the founding fathers.
Are you aware that the TSA found 25 loaded guns last week? How about the gun and knife found concealed in a can of peanuts. How about the loaded gun with 15 rounds left in an unattended bag at a car rental counter at an airport? All of this was just last week alone.
Again, what is your solution to the real security problem? I'd be curious to know your thoughts on the Patriot Act, which in my opinion does more damage to American Rights than the TSA.
An attempt at least! No doubt that commerce included navigation – and other carriage. But, this was in relation to commercial activity. The mere act of personal transportation is not commerce, but something that would be defined as merely affecting commerce. Not within federal jurisdiction on an original understanding. The purchase of the ticket, however, would most always qualify as interstate commerce.
To argue your point would empower the federal government to pat you down for merely walking across state lines. While you may personally prefer such a scenario, the constitutionality of it would be patently absurd.
The air force comment is elementary. Raise your standards, please.
As far as the rest of the question, I see it as a clear distraction. Policy Preferences should not affect the search for historical truth.
You forget the commercial/economic disruption caused by planes being used as suer bombs on 911. The economic impact was huge. We have come to realize that planes can be used as bombs therefore some security is needed. You choose to fly for personal reasons. Failure to regulate and secure the saety of the airways would lead to major commercial disruption – which is what the constitution is attempting to secure.
yes, that IS the argument of tyrants. well done!
Give up your freedoms, ignore the constitution, OR – catastrophe will happen. That is the same argument that was given for unconstitutional corporate bailouts too.
Not nearly as many people are falling for this kind of crap anymore.
Indeed… 27 August 2009, Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Nayef was injured and nearly killed when a wanted Al Qaida member bomber blew himself up in the prince's presence after cramming a half kilo of symtex up his rectum.
How do you propose TSA deal with THIS threat? Perhaps Fretjock is all for 100% full body strip searches and cavity checks??? Given the number of drug couriers already using this technique, I'll bet you'd justify it as necessary from both a security and a law enforcement point of view.
We'd definitely have to check out the pregnant chicks….no telling how much C4 could be crammed inside a uterus.
We can't be too careful, can we, Fretlock?
I'll grant there is a constitutional warrant for the existence of the TSA. There is not, however, a constitutional warrant for the unconstitutional abuse they are heaping upon the People through their writs of assistance.
We always have to look at the original meaning of commerce. It was trade, and the power was granted to "make trade regular." It was intended to keep states from setting up trade barriers between each other. As Boldin pointed out, this was never envisioned as a blanket power to regulate "transportation" of individuals.
But even if we accept Fretjock's vastly expanded understanding of the commerce clause, the entire notion of a Homeland Security Dept. is outside of Congress' powers.
As for the Fourth Amendment, we can argue all day about what constitutes "reasonable". Only a fool would argue searching a blind lady and her dog is "reasonable." But that ignores the second part of the amendment. Even a "reasonable search" has prescribed limits, namely probable cause. I refuse to accept the notion that boarding an airplane constitutes probable cause.
"It can also be said that you have the privilege of flying, not a right to fly. "
To my knowledge, taking advantage of a privilege does not suddenly negate the Constitution.
And the statement falls right into the gut of my argument. By this logic, TSA can stop my car and search it without warrant or probable cause, because clearly, a terrorist could use a car and driving is no different than flying.
Finally, I can't help but point out the irony of the fact that both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber got on aircraft while the TSA was dutifully groping small children and elderly passengers.
Governments at both the Federal and State levels make the claim that driving is a privledge and not a right, this is totally incorrect. traveling by any mode is a Natural and Constitutional Right and not a privledge and the SC of Illinois, Texas, Tennessee, Idaho, Arizona and several other states have all confirmed this Many of the SC Justices have stated that it doesn't matter what the mode of travel is, that it is our right to freely travel through out the united states by any mode.
Actually any infringements on our Right to travel freely is a violation including Fees for Drivers Licenses, Fees for Vehicle Registration, Fees for Vehicle License Plates, Fees for tickets while driving on the highway. These are all violations of our natural rights to travel. But they must be argued in court before they are dismissed, and the correct arguement must be made.
What's an Oath? http://goo.gl/AmWt6 – at The Snooper Report. How many will be in DC for Veteran's Day on 11.11.11?
Next time you post a link to a third party product or project – try to tie it in and show how your link is relevant to the article where you are posting the link. otherwise, very few people will think it worthwhile, and might even consider it spam.
I am appalled and ashamed to see the type of comments elicited by this article. Does NOBODY see the need to enforce the law? If a person violates their oath, should they not be REMOVED from their official position? These scoffers need to be stopped, prosecuted and dealt an appropriate consequence. At least they should reform their ways or lose their jobs. When and where will good people make a stand and put a stop to the disregard of sworn officials for their responsibilities? What will bring back TRUTH, HONESTY and INTEGRITY?
who is going to do the firing? seems like a pipe dream.
I'm afraid it may take some very hard times to wake up some of these people. Life in America has been so soft for so many for so long, they don't have any clue what a great society/ country we are losing.
It seems to me that an oath-breaker is not really any more than a 'stay at home' traitor. I have no use or respect for those who take that oath and then willingly violate any part of The Constitution. Those folks could all die overnight and I wouldn't care.
Well, the TSA guy [I refuse to call them agents] spews the same, lame, rote comments about the Constitution that all idiot-box-watchers will spew. They have been taught that somehow the rights given to this Nation's people are no longer valid. He's not upset over it because he isn't using his rights… right now. His 'beef' is with $$, as is the 'beef' with most people. Since $$ is the most important thing in their lives, citizen's rights are something 'other people' think about…. people with $$ think about their rights, not blue-collar-folks. They think about sports, music, sex, and all the money that people in those industries make. In other words, they are as plugged-in, as blind, as unaware as a person could possibly be.
So, let's put them in charge of security, shall we?
I haven't flown since 2005 after having flown regularly for years. Not flying cuts into my career opportunities but I sleep much better telling them if I can't drive there I don't need to be there..
“How small regard is had to the oath of God by men professing the name of God.”
George Gillespie
An oath has lost its meaning. Congress Members swear an oath to abide by and protect the Constitution, and then they are more loyal to their party and their own beliefs than they are to the oath.
Physicians swear an oath that includes: “above all do no harm.” The nation is full of pill mills run by Physicians.
The trial of Doctor Murray, Jackson’s physician and the testimony reflects the lack of regard for the oath each Physician has taken.
Society has become a body where “All for one and one for all” has come to exist only when the “ONE” is me
Thank you for posting this. I, too, dread every single time I fly and I'm subject to a pat-down or a full body scan. I have experienced both, and I can tell you, I hate it. I've seen old men in wheel chairs patted down. I've seen children have to extend their little arms so a stranger—who knows the child has nothing to hide—shows the passers-by that she is doing her job, and they can feel safe. Government agents are not supposed to exercise prudence, wisdom or logic. They are supposed to blindly follow procedures. Period. Want to talk back to them or express your disgust at what they are doing? Then they will exercise their authority to delay you and search you even more than the routine pat-down. So what if they took an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constition. To them, it is merely a paycheck and they want to keep their job. To the rest of us, it is disgusting and we allow it.
I’ve taken the oath every time I enlisted or re-enlisted in the Navy, and when I was hired by the U.S. Postal Service. I can’t say I memorized it, but I DO recognize it every time I hear it, and I remember swearing the oath, EVERY TIME! That is because I MEANT it; so far as I’m concerned, I am STILL obligated by it!
If ANY T.S.A. agents do not remember swearing it, it is the same as NOT even being obligated! This agent should check in with his/her superiors and RE-SWEAR!
I would like to know if any of our higher government officials remember taking the oath. Practically all of them seem to act as if they didn’t take it.
I am afraid tht our country is doomed to become a communist state because those we trust with our security are communists themselves.
Morton, actually they are Nazi's and have been here since the end of the second world war. The head of the TSA is also an agent for the Masad, and making millions on those machines they use in airports. He owns the company.
An oath has lost its meaning. The Congress members swear an oath to abide by and defend the Constitution, but they are more loyal to their party than they are to the Constitution. Society must enforce the laws, and not be permissive. The more permissive the Society the greater the abuse.