A Case for 10th Amendment Sovereignty: Texas dukes it out with the Federal government over TSA personal violations that are against state Penal Code

The City of Houston has three major international airports, Houston Intercontinental, Hobby International, and Ellington. TSA security teams search at all three airports using the Whole Body Imaging machines and physically invasive pat downs which TSA officers are "trained" to touch private parts four times. It is an unfortunate event that the general public is not standing up, wholesale, against such procedures that are far from within the Federal government's authorized duty to conduct. This is a violation of Texas Statute which defines sexual assault extensively, including coersion by force of threat. If a person refuses this abuse, TSA, under its rules will fine the person $20,000 and restrict their movement by forbidding the person to travel.

Because of the conflict and gross violation of the 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments, three bills were introduced in the Texas Legislature with heavy bi-partisan support: HB1937, HB 1938, and HCR 80 deal with the dignity of persons traveling and reaffirm state law which protects citizens from sexual assault, including acts forced by coersion upon a person under threat. The bills also reaffirm the 4th Amendment that requires legitimate warrants from probable cause. (The TSA rules provide absurd penalties as mentioned above, plus possible jail time.)

Because the Texas legislature understood its role in enforcing laws that the federal government has no true jurisdiction on, a notice (read: threat) came from the Department of Justice, warning the legislature to kill HR 1937 or "consider the consequences." Senate sponsor Dan Patrick, moved to pull the bill.

This is quite unfortunate and causes wonderment, in light of important opinions defending the sovereignty of states to legislate, and the federal government's Consitutionally prohibited power to do so to the states. And one has to wonder why the state, on behalf of millions who travel in and out of Houston Intercontinental, Hobby International, and Ellington has dumped at least one of the bills, HR1937 instead of defending it. All good sound bills, this issue promises to return on the same or another form.

In an Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997, Printz v.United States, Justice Scalia, speaking for the panel to reaffirm both the 4th and 5th Amendments and especially the 10th Amendment, said,

>...the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day." Id., at 187.
The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. Id., at 188. [Emphasis added.]

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution clarifies what the Framers expected and was again reaffirmed in the 1997 case:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

There are no caviats, exceptions, or exclusions. TSA under the federal order of President Obama clearly is not within Constitutional jurisdiction. The amendment further clarifies:

...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This clause of the amendment guarantees that innocent citizens are just that, innocent. Probable cause is not the same as "possible cause." The Framers (and Founders, who are not one and the same), were quite aware of flagrant violations of the people at the hands of their governments. "Possible cause" was the standard from which they bolted--knowing that governments who seize the people out of fear overcome them through tyrany.

The Fifth Amendment says, "No person [shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due precess of law," which prohibits TSA from restricting their movement without conviction of, or suspiscion of an actual crime. (Recall the absurdly severe penalties for not complying to sexual abuse.)

The Tenth Amendment grants all rights to the states and people not specifically assigned to the federal government.

So when the Federal government claims national security as the precepice behind their assaults upon the people, it is a huge offense to the people. In the apt words of Constitutional researcher, Rob Natelson,

"Wow. This looks like someting that (Roman Emperor) Septimius Severus would have sent to the local officials...It reminds one eerily of the kinds of communications that started to come out from the Emperor to the local cities of the Roman Empire, beginning the course of the ultimate destruction of local government."

Citizens of Houston and elsewhere should write their Texas legislators regarding all three Resolutions requiring that HR1937 be revisited next year and the two remaining bills be defended.

We are not in Rome.