ALERT: Rand Paul is being DETAINED at the Nashville Airport by the TSA

[GunnyFreedom]

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.

Seems to me that Rand was clearly "going to" session in the US Senate, which would be covered by the article. The whole point here is you can't arrest a Senator on his way to session, because that could be abused for political gain. It clearly says "in going to and returning from" which clearly covers Rand Paul in this case.

 

[eduardo89]

Well first off, this being liberty forest, people really can't ignore the unconstituional nature of the TSA.

Second, I'd say being detained on a voting day counts. He should be in DC already. He's going for official government business so he should be granted a domestic version of diplomatic immunity which is what I feel the founders definitely intended.

Everyone has their own personal version of what the bible or constitution means these days it seems...

What I meant by ignoring the unconstitutional nature of the TSA and their "safety" procedures is that until the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional or Congress passes a law changin their practices it is the law of the land. Sadly that's the way things are.

The fact is SCOTUS has ruled that the immunity only extends as far as carrying out legislative business and not to unrelated laws. The executive can't arrest Rand to prevent him from voting and that's not what happened here. They did not detain him with the intent of preventing him from reaching DC and carrying out his job. His refusal to get a pat down (which I completely agree with) was completely unrelated to him doing his job as a Senator.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I absolutely, completely disagree with you.

I'm with you. The text of the article is blatantly clear, you can't arrest a Senator on his way to attend session. I once did not understand that passage and it used to bother me, but now I do understand it. The original intent was to prevent a political opponent from having a Senator of Congressman arrested on his way to the Senate or Congress, thereby possibly changing the outcome of a controversial vote or filibuster.

Eduardo is usually right on most stuff, but quite wrong on this one. The text is clear, and when aligned with original intent, it's even more clear.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

What I meant by ignoring the unconstitutional nature of the TSA and their "safety" procedures is that until the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional or Congress passes a law changin their practices it is the law of the land. Sadly that's the way things are.

The fact is SCOTUS has ruled that the immunity only extends as far as carrying out legislative business and not to unrelated laws. The executive can't arrest Rand to prevent him from voting and that's not what happened here. They did not detain him with the intent of preventing him from reaching DC and carrying out his job. His refusal to get a pat down (which I completely agree with) was completely unrelated to him doing his job as a Senator.

So if I arrested someone to prevent a vote or a filibuster, all i have to do is claim I was arresting him for something else and it's all good?

Come on, that makes no sense. NOBODY who arrests a Senator to prevent him from voting is going to claim that they were trying to prevent him from voting. They will ALWAYS claim it was for some other irrelevant reason.

Taking your logic, the section may as well not exist, it becomes meaningless.

Rand was arrested ON HIS WAY TO session. Therefore he clearly falls under the text and the intent of this passage.

 

[Krugerrand]

What I meant by ignoring the unconstitutional nature of the TSA and their "safety" procedures is that until the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional or Congress passes a law changin their practices it is the law of the land. Sadly that's the way things are.

The fact is SCOTUS has ruled that the immunity only extends as far as carrying out legislative business and not to unrelated laws. The executive can't arrest Rand to prevent him from voting and that's not what happened here. They did not detain him with the intent of preventing him from reaching DC and carrying out his job. His refusal to get a pat down (which I completely agree with) was completely unrelated to him doing his job as a Senator.

How can you prove the intention of the detain-er? I would think there be a need of erroring on the side of caution so that somebody could not detain/arrest on bogus trumped up charges to prevent a congressman from getting to session.

 

[LiveForHonortune]

What I meant by ignoring the unconstitutional nature of the TSA and their "safety" procedures is that until the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional or Congress passes a law changin their practices it is the law of the land. Sadly that's the way things are.

The fact is SCOTUS has ruled that the immunity only extends as far as carrying out legislative business and not to unrelated laws. The executive can't arrest Rand to prevent him from voting and that's not what happened here. They did not detain him with the intent of preventing him from reaching DC and carrying out his job. His refusal to get a pat down (which I completely agree with) was completely unrelated to him doing his job as a Senator.

Where in Article I Section. 6. Paragraph I, Sentence II does it use the word "vote"? I'll be waiting...

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Really? Looks to me like he is on his way to DC to do official business!

Yeah, God forbid Rand is present to protest cloture on S. 968.

 

[eduardo89]

Seems to me that Rand was clearly "going to" session in the US Senate, which would be covered by the article. The whole point here is you can't arrest a Senator on his way to session, because that could be abused for political gain. It clearly says "in going to and returning from" which clearly covers Rand Paul in this case.

He can be detained, arrested and prosecuted for breaking laws unrelated to his official duties, which is the case. It's just like a Congressman can be detained/arrested for drinking and driving even if he is on his way to vote. SCOTUS was very clear about this already. Another example is Larry Craig who was arrested for soliciting sex in an airport bathroom, the immunity did not apply even though he was on his way to DC.

 

[RP Supporter]

On another site I'm on, the people(mostly liberals and neocons) are delighted to hear this. Delighted. Think about that. I can understand disagreeing with Paul, but you're delighted to hear that the government can detain anyone it wants?

I increasingly think we're doomed, simply because we've been divided and conquered. Most people who are not Paul supporters will cheer this because in their eyes, it makes us look bad. No one cares about the actual civil liberty violations taking place here.

 

[LiveForHonortune]

He can be detained, arrested and prosecuted for breaking laws unrelated to his official duties, which is the case. It's just like a Congressman can be detained/arrested for drinking and driving even if he is on his way to vote. SCOTUS was very clear about this already. Another example is Larry Craig who was arrested for soliciting sex in an airport bathroom, the immunity did not apply even though he was on his way to DC.

How about we ignore what the Supreme "lol corporations are people, money is speech, and 4th amendment is worthless" Court and focus on what the constitution says about this?

 

[blazeKing]

On another site I'm on, the people(mostly liberals and neocons) are delighted to hear this. Delighted. Think about that. I can understand disagreeing with Paul, but you're delighted to hear that the government can detain anyone it wants?

I increasingly think we're doomed, simply because we've been divided and conquered. Most people who are not Paul supporters will cheer this because in their eyes, it makes us look bad. No one cares about the actual civil liberty violations taking place here.

They have an "our team vs their team" mentality...they haven't woken up yet. What they don't realize is, as long as they keep that up, everybody loses.

 

[MsDoodahs]

On another site I'm on, the people(mostly liberals and neocons) are delighted to hear this. Delighted. Think about that. I can understand disagreeing with Paul, but you're delighted to hear that the government can detain anyone it wants?

I increasingly think we're doomed, simply because we've been divided and conquered. Most people who are not Paul supporters will cheer this because in their eyes, it makes us look bad. No one cares about the actual civil liberty violations taking place here.

It is quite heartbreaking, isn't it....

 

[eduardo89]

How about we ignore what the Supreme "lol corporations are people, money is speech, and 4th amendment is worthless" Court and focus on what the constitution says about this?

Because that would be living in fantasyland. Try and use that as a defense in court and see how te judge reacts. The sad thing is, a SCOTUS ruling carries more weight than the actual Constitution these days.

 

[Trigonx]

The people in the comments on some articles that say "Oh he expects to be treated differently than the rest of us". No dip shit he is acting the way we all should be acting when the TSA tries to groupe us. Stand up for ourselves and not take shit from our intrusive government.

 

[TheTexan]

Because that would be living in fantasyland. Try and use that as a defense in court and see how te judge reacts. The sad thing is, a SCOTUS ruling carries more weight than the actual Constitution these days.

Yep, this is because the SC is supposed to interpret the constitution, but when the President doesn't care about the constitution, he appoints judges that don't care about the constitution, and here we are.

 

[eduardo89]

Eduardo is usually right on most stuff, but quite wrong on this one. The text is clear, and when aligned with original intent, it's even more clear.

The original intent is one thing, the interpretation which is now the law of the land is another thing. I've said repeatedly that going by SCOTUS rulings, which ARE the law today, his constitutional right not to be detained on his way to DC was not violated because he was detained for a matter completely unrelated to the performance of his legislative business.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't see how you could have got that from what I said and this obviously wasn't the case.



Actually it was well established by in 1972 in Gravel vs United States.

SCOTUS does not have the authority to override the plain text of the Constitution.

 

[TheTexan]

SCOTUS does not have the authority to override the plain text of the Constitution.

Tell that to the commerce clause

 

[eduardo89]

Yep, this is because the SC is supposed to interpret the constitution, but when the President doesn't care about the constitution, he appoints judges that don't care about the constitution, and here we are.

Which is why we need Ron as president and 60 Rands in the Senate to remove all current justices and replace them with strict constitutionalists. Then sue the hell out of the federal government so everything is overturned

 

[eduardo89]

SCOTUS does not have the authority to override the plain text of the Constitution.

Tell that to the commerce clause

And the general welfare clause.

And the necessary and proper clause.

And Article I Section 8

The list can go on...