Realizing he ultimately did not have the votesl, Patrick decided to withdraw the bill, but not before making his passion for state autonomy known: “There was a time in this state, there was a time in our history, where we stood up to the federal government and we did not cower to rules and policies that invaded the privacy of Texans.”
After the bill was withdrawn, senators approached state Rep. David Simpson, R-Longview, the House author of the bill, who was watching from the Senate rail. They said they were looking for a way to delay the effective date of the bill (which otherwise would be immediate) to prevent the federal government from closing Texas airports.
Mike Walz, a spokesman for Dewhurst, said that while Hinojosa was voicing his concerns, Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, approached Dewhurst at the podium with a list of 12 senators who had withdrawn support of the bill in light of the threat to close airports or cancel flights. He said Dewhurst saw the letter from the U.S. attorney earlier today but believed the Senate had enough votes to pass the bill when he brought it onto the floor.
“Our law abiding citizens should not be subjected to invasive searches that are embarrassing and humiliating,” Patrick said. "Our country is saying there’s too much federal government in our lives, and this was a chance for Texas to take the lead and probably change the policy of TSA, because does anyone think that they’re really going to close down all the airports tomorrow?”
May 24, 2011
[On U.S. Department of Justice, Western District of Texas, stationery. Addressed to Speaker Joe Straus, Dewhurst, the House Clerk and the Senate Secretary]
I write with regard to HB 1937, which I understand will imminently be presented to the Texas Senate for a vote.
This office, as well as the Southern, Northern, and Eastern District of Texas United States Attorneys, would like to advise you of the significant leagal and practical problems that will be created if the bill becomes law. As you are no doubt aware, the bill makes it a crime for a federal transportation official ("TSO") to perform the security screening that he or she is authorized and required by federal law to perform. The proposed legislation would make it unlawful for a federal agent such as a TSO to perform certain specified searches for the purpose of granting access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation. That provision would thus criminalize searches that are required under federal regulations in order to ensure the safety of the American public. The legislation also makes it a crime for a public servant, as defined by the bill, to deny or impede another person in the excercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege, knowing that the public servant's conduct is unlawful. As a result, it appears the intent of the bill is to preclude a TSO from turning away from the secure area of an airport someone who otherwise would have been subjected to a pat down as a condition of entry.
That is just what happened in the 1860's. You remember how that ended. The end of states rights.
Originally posted by TDawgRex
I would love to see Texas stand up to this. It would definitely get the MSM’s attention. Mobilize the Texas National Guard and send them to Hood and Bliss to get their vehicles and equipment. I understand that the Regular Army on base would have a problem with that and tensions would ensue. But I doubt that US Soldiers will fire at other US Soldiers. That alone would ratchet up the media attention. I guarantee the Feds would back down.
It could very well be the return of States rights.
They can pass it if they want to, but they had to make a choice.
Originally posted by buni11687
What *%(%**)(!?!?!? Are they just gonna roll over and take it even thought they have enough to pass it?!?!? Jeez guys, I mean come on! Seriously!
Originally posted by Aisling
And on that TSA blog article it is stated that 90% people do not complain about the pat downs. What bs. If you complain you get threatened. If you try to leave the area, they won't let you without the pat down.
This is nuts. I really hope TX fights back. I'm proud of TX for standing up.
(1) While acting under color of the person’s office or employment:
(A) Intentionally subjects another person to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that the actor knows is unlawful;
(B) Intentionally denies or impedes another person in the exercise or enjoyment of any right,privilege, power, or immunity, knowing the actor ’s conduct is unlawful; or
(C) Intentionally subjects another person to sexual harassment; or
(2) While acting under color of the person ’s office or employment without probable cause to believe the other person committed an offense:
(A) Performs a search for the purpose of granting access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation;and
(B) Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(i) Touches the anus, sexual organ,buttocks, or breast of the other person, including touching through clothing; or
(ii) Touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person.
Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by Konah
It was basically the "Without Probable Cause" bit that they are hinging on. That puts an end to all "enhanced" pat downs. Although I found it interesting that the letter from the DOJ spend more effort on the idea that the TSO is doing something that they know to be illegal... That implies a lot about their training and intent.