#rsrh One last point on the TSA/Rand Paul thing.

With regard to yesterday’s TSA/Rand Paul flap, Ric Locke notes something important here:

Senators are not “anybody else”, they’re Congresscritters. Congresscritters are important, and have that privilege in the Constitution, because they’re Congresscritters. The Framers put the requirement in because they knew history, particularly the events surrounding the English Revolution and Restoration. There’s a long history of rulers getting a free hand by preventing Parliament from meeting, and although there’s no way for Law to stand in the way of that in a practical sense, with that provision as Law of the Land Teh Protector at least can’t argue that the tactic is legal.

There are certain things that I take a hard, will not cross, I don’t care if you like it or not, line on: birthright citizenship, money in politics, “shall issue” rather than “may issue” firearm licensing, and getting in the way of Congressmen going to and fro work.  In each case it’s all based on purely selfish motives:

  • I do not want Congress to be able to declare that somebody born in this country isn’t a citizen after all, because a Congress that can do that can later decide that I don’t qualify, either.  Preventing even the chance of that happening to me is worth any number of Mexican-American anchor babies, frankly.
  • I do not want Congress to be able to define who can and cannot spend money to promote a political cause, because they have already used that power to try to shut me up.  I decline to be shut up, and I want as many opportunities to talk as possible.  If that means Super-PACs and corporate funding of elections, fine by me.
  • I do not want anybody deciding for me what the Second Amendment means or does not mean.  The existing track record of people with political power who also do not like guns stinks.
  • And I do not want there to be a precedent that a sober, peacefully progressing federal legislator on his way back to Washington can be stopped, impeded, harassed, discommoded, or hindered in any way, shape or form.  As Ric notes, there’s a long historical record of how that precedent, once set, can be used for scurrilous ends.

So I’d like to see some people at the TSA in Nashville fired now, please.  In order to encourage the others.

Moe Lane

PS: I’m sure that you can come up with specific exceptions to each point.  Individual cases are one thing; but I default on these issues to as expansive a range as is humanly possible.

PPS: “Fired?  Moe, they were just doing their jobs!”  Yup!  …And firing them for it will make sure that the next batch will be very, very careful to never impede the progress of a sitting legislator ever again. “But that’s not fair, Moe!” Sure, no argument, it’s not fair.  Neither is life, the last time that I checked.  “You’re not in their position, Moe!” Nope, I’m not! Look, if I note that I’m being an uncaring bastard about this can you stop trying to establish it, and move on?


  • DanB says:

    Agreed. I want power of the federal government to impact my life as limited as possible. As you say, their track record is dismal at best.

    Oh, and I read it as “The existing track record of people with political power who also do not like (other people* to have) guns stinks

    *Other people, of course, because it seems that any number of the anti gun zealots in power don’t mind having them around themselves. They just have to be “right thinking” people.

  • Andy Stone says:

    But Moe, if we skip aggressive pat-downs for Congresscritters, then all that a terrorist with an underwear-bomb agenda has to do is get themselves elected to Congress. Didn’t you get the memo about the TSA not allowing any such security loopholes?

  • Ric Locke says:

    “Chust obeyink orders, mein Herr” hasn’t been an excuse for anything in this country since 1947. Nor should it be.

  • Phil Smith says:

    Then we need to establish a protocol whereby members of congress do not have to go through any security screening at all. In the absence of such a policy, the screeners are no more to blame than the capitol hill cop was that stopped Cynthia McKinney for failure to wear her identification when she attempted to bypass screening.

  • Tanggor says:

    I’ve always been very against the “anchor baby” situation, believing that they should not be granted that thing acquired illegally by their parents.

    But you raise a really good point, which is causing me to re-examine my position.

    I freaking hate when you do that.

  • Mikey NTH says:

    Cue the quote:
    William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
    Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
    Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com