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

[eduardo89]

I just drudged that provision....

Once again, that provision does not apply here. Congressmen do not have blanket immunity.

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.

 

[devil21]

I dont know if it's true or not but a liberal friend told me that Paul was on his way to or on his way home from a Pro-life rally?

Does anybody know why Rand was in Tennessee in the first place? If it really was for a pro-life rally then Ron has some serious red meat to use in tonite's debate!

 

[Muwahid]

Or maybe he simply doesn't like having his balls squeezed.

try getting a jury to believe that!

 

[ZanZibar]

Does anybody know why Rand was in Tennessee in the first place?

It's the closest major airport to his house.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

I dont know if it's true or not but a liberal friend told me that Paul was on his way to or on his way home from a Pro-life rally?

Does anybody know why Rand was in Tennessee in the first place? If it really was for a pro-life rally then Ron has some serious red meat to use in tonite's debate!

We live in Bowling Green. No commercial airlines. Nashville is 50 minutes away. Closest airport.

 

[69360]

Has the TSA ever done anything like this before to a sitting senator? Anyone know?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Once again, that provision does not apply here. Congressmen do not have blanket immunity.

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.

If he was heading back to D.C. to conduct legislative business, how can you say that?

 

[RonPaulFever]

deleted.

You are human trash. There's no other way to say it.

 

[jtbraine]

n,ljk

 

[sailingaway]

Once again, that provision does not apply here. Congressmen do not have blanket immunity.

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.

OK, I should have read the whole thread, I still haven't. I see your point about preventing ongoing bad action BUT the TSA is unconstitutional in my point to begin with so if it actually goes to court I think Rand has the 4th amendment to fall back on.

 

[RonRules]

If it's what we have to go through to get the "Paul" name in the news, then that's what we have to do!

 

[V3n]

He was flying to the Right to Life March in DC, I believe.

 

[aowen]

"People with guns are good to go through... pro freedom senators are where we draw the line"
-TSA-


By the way I'm not saying law abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed to take anything they want as long as the airline doesn't mind.

 

[slamhead]

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.

Of course the supreme court interpreted it a way it was not intended as it reads..."AND for any speech or debate in either house". It was the founding father's intention to keep our legislators free from molestation traveling to and from congress except for treason, felony, or breach of peace. Breach of peace is pretty broad though. I wonder how the supreme court interprets that.

Breach of peace.

The first two are somewhat self-explanatory; it has been suggested that the third is deliberately somewhat vague. The doctrine thus established is called congressional immunity; it arose out of the necessity to prevent a vengeful executive from arresting members of the legislature under a pretext to prevent them from taking actions that the executive might find to be displeasing. In recent years, this doctrine has been used to prevent members from being stopped and held for speeding on their way to sessions; this apparently is not a "breach of the peace", whereas perhaps another misdemeanor such as "drunk and disorderly" might be construed to be such.

Most states of the United States and most other English-speaking jurisdictions have extended this privilege to members of their legislatures on the theory outlined above.

 

[ross11988]

Once again, that provision does not apply here. Congressmen do not have blanket immunity.

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.

Exactly. Anyone remember Larry Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig#2007_arrest_and_consequences)

 

[SaulPaulinsky]

I'm completely cheering the guy on. He had two options of how to take that moment and decided to make a point and stand on his rights, as Bierfieldt did, but with much more media to follow, I'm sure.

You kidding? He would have been a laughingstock if he had submitted. The report would have been about how he fought in the senate but chickened out at the gate.

 

[eduardo89]

If he was heading back to D.C. to conduct legislative business, how can you say that?

His detainment/arrest had nothing to do with legislative business. The clause has been determined by the courts to apply in only very specific circumstances and it does not apply here, you'd have to stretch it as far as the federal government stretches the interstate commerce clause for it to apply to this.

 

[unknown]

deleted

WTF?

 

[european]

From Macedonia "TSA Detains US Senator Rand Paul... refuses groping" http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/20164/61/

The irony in America, former convicts (TSA employees) detaining politicians.

 

[devil21]

He was flying to the Right to Life March in DC, I believe.

That's what I was told so that's a second confirmation. Ron Paul MUST bring this up tonite at the debate!!