NJ Legislation Bans TSA Scanners and Criminalizes Unreasonable Searches and Invasive Pat Downs

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Aggie Man
It will be interesting to see if this holds up, as airports are in federal jurisdiction, rather than state jurisdiction.

Wrong! Federal jurisdiction depends on the crime and whether the property is owned by the feds. There are no federally owned airports in NJ, except for McGuire AFB and a couple of USCG heliports. If a TSA agent grabbed a female passenger, dragged her into a closet and raped her, hestill would face state charges.

It doesn't matter if the feds own the airport property. If a flight crosses state lines, then the feds have jurisdiction. So long as NJ planes take off and land within the state of NJ, then the state would have jurisdiction. I can see making a case for small municipal airports; however, the larger airports clearly fall under federal jurisdiction.

You are confusing Title 49 jurisdiction to regulate aircraft in interstate transportation with Title 18 Criminal jurisdiction. And it is often the case that both state and federal have jurisdiction over the same conduct. For instance, if you rob an FDIC insured bank and someone gets killed, the feds can prosecute for bank robbery at the same ime the state does for felony murder. The LEOs with arrest powers at airports are state or local officers, not feds. Sometimes the police force at an airport is a discrete force with jurisdiction only at the airport. Sometimes, it's the local Sheriff's Dept. At Newark Liberty Airport, it is the Port Authority Police.

reply to post by Aggie Man

It doesn't matter if the feds own the airport property. If a flight crosses state lines, then the feds have jurisdiction.

You are absolutely correct. Although I certainly abhor which the TSA is doing, the unfortunate fact remains that the "Commerce Clause" DOES give the Federal government the right to do what they are doing. Having said that, it is a totally useless effort on behalf of the TSA, considering that fact that millions of illegals cross our borders, totally unchecked every single year. There is no doubt, that given enough time, a "suitcase nuclear device" will make that crossing, and the results will be devastating. When will the government decide to protect our BORDERS? Those same borders fall under the "Commerce Clause"!

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

It doesn't matter if the feds own the airport property. If a flight crosses state lines, then the feds have jurisdiction.

You are absolutely correct. Although I certainly abhor which the TSA is doing, the unfortunate fact remains that the "Commerce Clause" DOES give the Federal government the right to do what they are doing. Having said that, it is a totally useless effort on behalf of the TSA, considering that fact that millions of illegals cross our borders, totally unchecked every single year. There is no doubt, that given enough time, a "suitcase nuclear device" will make that crossing, and the results will be devastating. When will the government decide to protect our BORDERS? Those same borders fall under the "Commerce Clause"!

No, it does not.

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by mnemeth1


The federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate air travel nor do they have any authority to seize control of airport security - which takes place on private property.

I believe they do via the commerce clause.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.

SOURCE: The Unites States Constitution

Commercial flights certainly fall within the definition of commerce.

edit on 6-12-2010 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)

Loose interpretation:
I can see you're probably one of those who believe the much hyped"general welfare clause" means whatever the hell you think it means on any particular day.

So now we ask what's your definition of "commerce"?(in this instance) The buying and selling of seat space( which happens in "cyberspace"? Or the actual performance of the service( flying and maintenance)???

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Aggie Man
It will be interesting to see if this holds up, as airports are in federal jurisdiction, rather than state jurisdiction.

Wrong! Federal jurisdiction depends on the crime and whether the property is owned by the feds. There are no federally owned airports in NJ, except for McGuire AFB and a couple of USCG heliports. If a TSA agent grabbed a female passenger, dragged her into a closet and raped her, hestill would face state charges.

Exactly so.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I gotta say, I am shocked and pleasantly surprised that NJ has a legislator with the testicular fortitude for this!

This crap needs to end NOW.

Starred and flagged OP

Originally posted by 46ACE
Loose interpretation:
I can see you're probably one of those who believe the much hyped"general welfare clause" means whatever the hell you think it means on any particular day.

So now we ask what's your definition of "commerce"?(in this instance) The buying and selling of seat space( which happens in "cyberspace"? Or the actual performance of the service( flying and maintenance)???

edit on 7-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

Loose interpretation? It doesn't matter what one's opinion of the definition of commerce might be. The fact of the matter is that "commerce" is legally defined.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The term COMMERCE as used in the Constitution means business or commercial exchanges in any and all of its forms between citizens of different states, including purely social communications between citizens of different states by telegraph, telephone, or radio, and the mere passage of persons from one state to another for either business or pleasure.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by 46ACE
Loose interpretation:
I can see you're probably one of those who believe the much hyped"general welfare clause" means whatever the hell you think it means on any particular day.

So now we ask what's your definition of "commerce"?(in this instance) The buying and selling of seat space( which happens in "cyberspace"? Or the actual performance of the service( flying and maintenance)???

edit on 7-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

Loose interpretation?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The term COMMERCE as used in the Constitution means business or commercial exchanges in any and all of its forms between citizens of different states, including purely social communications between citizens of different states by telegraph, telephone, or radio, and the mere passage of persons from one state to another for either business or pleasure.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

That is from the FDR packed SCOTUS that enabled sweeping legislation to be enacted through a perversion in the interpretation of the Commerce Clause. If you go along with the packed court of FDR's years, then the feds eventually have the right to make us carry passports to travel from state to state, something the founders surely would have opposed by force of arms.

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
That is from the FDR packed SCOTUS that enabled sweeping legislation to be enacted through a perversion in the interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

All the SCOTUS did was uphold the powers already granted to Congress via the "Necessary and Proper Clause" of the constitution.

Furthermore, the cornerstone case (McCulloch v. Maryland) regarding the Necessary and Proper Clause was endorsed by John Marshall, who was appointed by John Adams (The 2nd POTUS, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Massachusetts representative at the Continental Congress).

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
That is from the FDR packed SCOTUS that enabled sweeping legislation to be enacted through a perversion in the interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

All the SCOTUS did was uphold the powers already granted to Congress via the "Necessary and Proper Clause" of the constitution.

Furthermore, the cornerstone case (McCulloch v. Maryland) regarding the Necessary and Proper Clause was endorsed by John Marshall, who was appointed by John Adams (The 2nd POTUS, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Massachusetts representative at the Continental Congress).

edit on 7-12-2010 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)

FDR could not get his programs enacted without a SCOTUS approval; the Constitution was NEVER intended to grant such sweeping powers to any Federal government. So FDR packed the court so to expand the interpretation of the commerce clause far beyond what John Marshall or Adams ever intended.

The legal synopsis you posted "explaining" the commerce clause is a recent invention based on the criminal packing of SCOTUS by America's only four-term president and his assumed infinite wisdom. It paved the way for every invasive and unconstitutional action of the federal government since.

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
FDR could not get his programs enacted without a SCOTUS approval; the Constitution was NEVER intended to grant such sweeping powers to any Federal government. So FDR packed the court so to expand the interpretation of the commerce clause far beyond what John Marshall or Adams ever intended.

The legal synopsis you posted "explaining" the commerce clause is a recent invention based on the criminal packing of SCOTUS by America's only four-term president and his assumed infinite wisdom. It paved the way for every invasive and unconstitutional action of the federal government since.

If I may ask, what exactly was "criminal" about FDR's Supreme Court appointments? FRD's Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 (a.k.a. Court Packing Plan) was shot down in the Senate. All of his appointments were made in compliance with his constitutional authority.

reply to post by mnemeth1


It's a Jersey thing.

Second line.



Score +1 for a person keeping their dignity while traveling via air.

You know, as much as I don't like the concept of the judiciary creating new laws with their rulings sometimes, they really are the ones that save our butts a lot of the time.

It's sad when the state governments must protect the citizens because our representatives in the federal government have stopped enacting the will of their populace.

The federal government has really had few problems in stepping on the Bill of Rights. We can only hope that they still respect number 10.

1 Petition site among 1000's www.thepetitionsite.com...
&
A bunch of junk to go with the thread.

Quote
"New Jersey moves to ban TSA airport body scanners"

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21975 - Cached
wilderside.wordpress.com...
www.pocatelloshops.com...
usnewstrend.com...

More or less the only complaint's come from New York.

Even though I will stand with my state forever on this matter we differ as no state can override a Federal law as this is a misuse of the 10th amendment. Airports are subject to Federal jurisdiction and not state jurisdiction so no state has the authourity to override the Federal. Federal trumps state always on matters like this.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I guess I missed the point. Is the point to waste tax payer money drafting legislation that won't hold up? Or are they drafting the legislation, knowing it won't hold up, so that they can challenge it in the federal courts?

The point is to point out the criminality of the federal government.

And when the criminal federal government strikes it down, it will highlight the fact that the federal government is nothing but an institution of thieves, liars, and petty dictators.

Beautifully stated..... this is why we must stop these pyschopathic megalomaniacs NOW!!!!
From the United States Code...

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State,
Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having
so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to
prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or
an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse,
or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for
life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Constitutional Law and American Jurisprudence dictates....

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

AND......

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

Although the airports are privately owned corporations, and we pay to use them, it is our right, natural born right, to not be invaded personally or privately for that right to use something for which WE pay for. This is where the federal government has crossed the line. ALL government agencies NOT voted on or organized by the public at large, are unconstitutional agencies and therefore NULL AND VOID of ANY jurisdiction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THATS IT.................NUFF SAID

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by 46ACE
Loose interpretation:
I can see you're probably one of those who believe the much hyped"general welfare clause" means whatever the hell you think it means on any particular day.

So now we ask what's your definition of "commerce"?(in this instance) The buying and selling of seat space( which happens in "cyberspace"? Or the actual performance of the service( flying and maintenance)???

edit on 7-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

Loose interpretation? It doesn't matter what one's opinion of the definition of commerce might be. The fact of the matter is that "commerce" is legally defined.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The term COMMERCE as used in the Constitution means business or commercial exchanges in any and all of its forms between citizens of different states, including purely social communications between citizens of different states by telegraph, telephone, or radio, and the mere passage of persons from one state to another for either business or pleasure.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

edit on 7-12-2010 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)

If you would look up the definition of "person" you would see it is held to include foreign and domestic corporations. I am NOT a "person", I am a flesh and blood living soul. A human being and NOT a person by the legal defintion. Which some believe has been held to include "natural persons" but it does not, and the term citizen when NOT capital "C", then it is a federal property "citizen" and NOT a sovereign "Citizen" as it is a noun when capital "C" is used. KNOW law or no law!!!!! Therefore Citizen is outside federal jurisdcition and the TSA can ONLY derive jusrisdiction with the consent of the people. DO NOT GIVE CONSENT.... Know you rights or no rights.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius; A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition (emphasis mine)


Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius; /inklũwzh(iy)ow yanáyəs ést əksklũwzh(iy)ow oltíriyəs/. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition (emphasis mine)


When, in any law or statute code or regulation, a reference is made to a “person” it is the exclusion of Natural and sovereign persons or people. This has been held to be truth and fact in all cases.

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) (emphasis mine)

edit on 8-12-2010 by daddio because: spelling

I was illegally searched in NJ ten years ago and have heard from friends that not much has changed on that front so I have to say this surprises me, pleasantly, but still surprises me.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Even though I will stand with my state forever on this matter we differ as no state can override a Federal law as this is a misuse of the 10th amendment. Airports are subject to Federal jurisdiction and not state jurisdiction so no state has the authourity to override the Federal. Federal trumps state always on matters like this.

For everyone here......PLEASE explain just WHO is the "State" and WHO is the "Federal Government". Is it an idea? An individual? A group of people? And who are THEY? And how do they derive jurisdiction and where is the enforcement clause?

Please explain this to me. Having studied law for many years and waking up to the fraud, I am interested in others ideas and opinions as to just who and how, jurisdiction is derived and WHO really has the authority.