Rand Paul detained by TSA

[jasonxe]

on rp facebook.

Free Rand Paul!!!

 

[floridasun1983]

Wow....this is a brazen (and foolish) move by the TSA.

 

[flightlesskiwi]

whiskey tango foxtrot.

 

[eduardo89]

whiskey tango foxtrot.

WTF!

 

[Muwahid]

First brown people now Senators who oppose tyranny

 

[brushfire]

So it begins...

 

[flightlesskiwi]

So it begins...

should make for an excellent Rand Paul speech on the floor...

that few will hear and fewer will care about.

 

[ZanZibar]

Art I Sec 6: Section 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

 

[blazeKing]

It's on Drudge

 

[swissaustrian]

Art I Sec 6: Section 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

Matt C, I'm sure the campaign is using this for Ron's campaign?
I posted a suggestion to do this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...etained-by-the-TSA-HUGE-political-opportunity

 

[eduardo89]

Art I Sec 6: Section 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

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.

Members of the United States Congress enjoy a similar parliamentary privilege as members of the British Parliament; that is, they cannot be prosecuted for anything they say on the floor of the House or Senate. They also enjoy the right to be present in Congress: that is, they may be in prison or jail the rest of the time, but they have the right to attend Congressional sessions, speak on the floor, vote, etc. These rights are specified in the Constitution and have been fairly uncontroversial in U.S. history. Courts have consistently interpreted them very narrowly.

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.

 

[LibertyEagle]

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.

My understanding is that he was heading to D.C. to the Senate floor, so it damn well DOES apply.

 

[eduardo89]

My understanding is that he was heading to D.C. to the Senate floor, so it damn well DOES apply.

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.

 

[affa]

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.

it's actually nothing like saying that.

as far as the reading of the Constitution you offer... if a Congressman is on his way to vote, and his opponents want to stop him, they need to make sure he's early in his trip to DC, just not within 100 feet of the building?

 

[torchbearer]

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.

the machine did have an anomaly. when he went through later- nothing beeped. but instead of allowing him just to go through again- the insisted on violating his 4th amendment again to a degree he objected to. they then escorted him to a little room where he was to stay until police came to escort him out. detained.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

We need to use this for all the free press its worth.

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

 

[texasbelle]

Brooke Baldwin tweeted that she will be reporting on this story at 2pm ET on CNN.

 

[ZanZibar]

His detainment had nothing to do with official legislative business.

That has nothing to do with it. The Constitution doesn't use that as a qualifier as to whether or not detainment on the way to business is legal.

 

[torchbearer]

That has nothing to do with it. The Constitution doesn't use that as a qualifier as to whether or not detainment on the way to business is legal.

perhaps we can have charges made against the tsa? if an agency breaks the law stated in the constitution, who prosecutes?