I do not believe that Rand Paul was thinking about the constitutional right of congressmen. He was just "pissed off."
Quote:Frank Apisa wrote:
And when the TSA people asked you to do whatever they asked you to do when the alarm went off...did you refuse?
Of course I did! After all, I am not a US congressman. And even if I was, that would do me no good in Frankfurt, Germany, where the US constitution doesn't apply.
Quote:Frank Apisa wrote:
Regardless of why the alarm went off...there will be a response. Not sure why the response was a call for a pat-down, but if that was the response...are you suggesting that people should challenge it?
No I'm not suggesting that people should challenge it, I'm suggesting that Congresspeople should.
This is not about a constitutional right of the people, this is about a constitutional privilege of Congresspeople. To the rest of us, the US constitution has never granted the privilege of just saying "no" to the US government's executive branch.
Well, it certainly can be conceived of that way, Thomas. I prefer to conceive of it as a congressman who could easily have handled this situation in a much better way, deciding to show that he, as a congressperson, is too important and obviously trustworthy to have to submit to the kind of anti-terrorist precautions peons have to. Seems to me that was an interesting lesson he helped to illustrate for the citizenry.
But it is nice to know he has ardent defenders like you...and as I said...if you want to consider his conduct to be "standing up for an important principle" that certainly is your right.
Did you actually mean, "Of course, I did NOT?"
Well, it certainly can be conceived of that way, Thomas. I prefer to conceive of it as a congressman who could easily have handled this situation in a much better way,
In your opinion, what would have been" a much better way" to handle it?
And why would that way have been much better?
Quote:In your opinion, what would have been" a much better way" to handle it?
To simply submit to the pat down.
Quote:And why would that way have been much better?
It would have gotten him on his flight.
I understand, acknowledge, and fully appreciate that intelligent, reasonable, people can strongly disagree with me and logically argue otherwise.
I was getting ready to drive to your place so we can have a bottle of beer and I can whoop your agnostic arse---rhetorically speaking.
By the same token, Rosa Parks could have handled that bus seat situation in a much better way by just taking a seat in the back.
because he forgot his phone and could not call.
I believe Thomas is correct in noting that the TSA appears to be a rule bound operation from which judgment and common sense are deliberately excluded.
While I agree with Joe from Chicago's remarks about the theoretical suitability and practicality of probabilistic screening approaches, with ID-based exemptions for certain classes of people, I am decidedly against exempting any of our elected legislators or senior government officials from any of the offensive inconveniences they have inflicted on the rest of us.
I'm not too keen on treating lawyers well either.