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

[LiveForHonortune]

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.

So it's ok for you to tell others to ignore the TSA being unconstitutional and not live in fantasyland?

I'm merely saying, what IF. Not what IS. It is not fantasy when our nation at one time had it.

Then again, I WILL say what is. The constitution didn't say just voting. Just session or bussiness.

Now if Nixon's head in a jar thinks the constitution doesn't mean squat, he's wrong. Dead wrong.

You need to understand any reasonable person sees this as extremely upsetting. The core foundation of our nation is being chopped by the axe of tyranny.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Eduardo you are misinterpreting this. It does not just apply to immunity during official business on the floor of congress. The founding father's intended to keep enemies from hindering a legislator traveling to and from congress. With the exception of "breach of peace" it is very clear that a senator cannot be arrested for minor crimes less than a misdemeanor. Back before there was air travel legislators would have to travel by land passing through other states and such. It was intended to keep political enemies from keeping a legislator from casting a vote on the floor of congress.

This. Original intent for the win.

 

[Krugerrand]

Tell that to the commerce clause

Or to the 2nd amendment.

 

[eduardo89]

Or to the 2nd amendment.

Or the 4th.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!

Um. 'selective application' where they let go Senators they agree with and detain senators they don't is EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDERS WERE TRYING TO PREVENT with the passage in the first place.

 

[69360]

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.

The court will consider intent when ruling. Rand's intent was simply to board the plane which was necessary to return to the session. Craig's intent was to have sex, which wasn't necessary to return to the session.

They are very different cases.

 

[eduardo89]

So it's ok for you to tell others to ignore the TSA being unconstitutional and not live in fantasyland?

I'm merely saying, what IF. Not what IS. It is not fantasy when our nation at one time had it.

Then again, I WILL say what is. The constitution didn't say just voting. Just session or bussiness.

Now if Nixon's head in a jar thinks the constitution doesn't mean squat, he's wrong. Dead wrong.

You need to understand any reasonable person sees this as extremely upsetting. The core foundation of our nation is being chopped by the axe of tyranny.

That not what I said at all. I never defended the TSA or their practices and have consistently said that they need to be abolished for being unconstitutional. I said you'd be living in fantasyland if you're going to ignore the law and SCOTUS rulings just because you think they're wrong. They need to be changed/abolished/overturned but to ignore them because they don't fit in with your views is idiotic at best and dangerous at worst.

 

[virginiakid]

Hopefully the will be a great rally call for the campaign and those who feel the TSA is overstepping its boundaries.

 

[eduardo89]

Um. 'selective application' where they let go Senators they agree with and detain senators they don't is EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDERS WERE TRYING TO PREVENT with the passage in the first place.

I agree. And that's what I said to his post. They let Al Gore go without charges for driving drunk in violation of the law because they decided to selectively apply the law.

 

[TheTexan]

The Judicial Branch, Executive Branch, and Legislative Branch all don't give a damn about the original intent of the constitution, so the original intent of the constitution means zero. Nada.

Nullification imo :/

 

[MsDoodahs]

Um. 'selective application' where they let go Senators they agree with and detain senators they don't is EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDERS WERE TRYING TO PREVENT with the passage in the first place.

Yet it is what we have today.

The last few pages of this thread ALONE demonstrate what a monster of a mess we're up against, y'all.

 

[MsDoodahs]

dupe.

 

[eduardo89]

The court will consider intent when ruling. Rand's intent was simply to board the plane which was necessary to return to the session. Craig's intent was to have sex, which wasn't necessary to return to the session.

They are very different cases.

I agree with you. But if you take the world literally a congressman cannot be detained for any reason while on his way to congress. That's why SCOTUS ruled in Gravel v US that te immunity does not apply to laws unrelated to the carrying out of legislative business.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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.

Sorry brother you are wrong. Nobody who arrests a Senator to prevent a critical vote is going to SAY that they are arresting him to prevent a vote. Therefore under your interpretation the entire passage is meaningless and there is no reason for the framers to have included it in the first place.

Clearly you cannot arrest a Senator on his way to session in Congress for any reason except those enumerated. The text is plan on it's face.

It's like the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS may have held up Federal Gun Control, but that does not make it any less blatant a Constitutional violation.

The text of the section is clear. By a simple reading of the plain text it obviously applies in this case.

 

[virginiakid]

My question is, does congressman/woman have immunity going en route to congressional business? I didn't think they could be detained like that.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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.

In our form of government, SCOTUS does not have the authority to overrule the Constitution.

 

[eduardo89]

The Judicial Branch, Executive Branch, and Legislative Branch all don't give a damn about the original intent of the constitution, so the original intent of the constitution means zero. Nada.

Nullification imo :/

Yup, that's the sad reality. Unless we have a SCOTUS that cares about original intent, or a POTUS who appoints those judges and 60 Senators who allow it to happen the Constitution's original intent is meaningless and to ignore this fact is akin to living in a fantasy land.

Nullification is the only path I see to changing this. Even if Ron becomes president, SCOTUS and the Senate won't budge.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Tell that to the commerce clause

Our government does all kinds of unconstitutional things. Doesn't mean they are actually allowed to, they just do it. Wickard v Filburn was even more wrong than Plessy v Ferguson.

 

[slamhead]

Yup, that's the sad reality. Unless we have a SCOTUS that cares about original intent, or a POTUS who appoints those judges and 60 Senators who allow it to happen the Constitution's original intent is meaningless and to ignore this fact is akin to living in a fantasy land.

Nullification is the only path I see to changing this. Even if Ron becomes president, SCOTUS and the Senate won't budge.

You need to take a look at the case you are citing. It applies to "Speech and debate clause" and affirms that the clause extends to congressional aides "only" in the course of their legislative duties.

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.

Majority ruling by SCOTUS.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the privileges of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides. Rejecting the reasoning of the court of appeals and substituting its own, "...the privilege available to the aide is confined to those services that would be immune legislative conduct if performed by the Senator himself," the Court declared.[7] However, the Court refused to protect congressional aides from prosecution for criminal conduct, or from testifying at trials or grand jury proceedings involving third-party crimes.[8] The Supreme Court also threw out the lower courts' order permitting some questions and barring others, concluding that if the testimony is privileged then the privilege is absolute.[9]

However, the Court upheld the district court's ruling regarding private publication. "[Private] publication by Senator Gravel through the cooperation of Beacon Press was in no way essential to the deliberations of the Senate; nor does questioning as to private publication threaten the integrity or independence of the Senate by impermissibly exposing its deliberations to executive influence

This case had to do with the publishing of the Pentagon Papers. They went after an aide that arranged their publishing in a news paper. I think under todays laws the aide would be protected under the whistle blower laws.

 

[Krugerrand]

I'll settle this....

Everybody who agrees with eduardo pound your desk with your right fist.

Everybody who disagrees, pound your desk with your left fist.





...




...




...


There, now we should all feel better!