Rand Paul illegally detained at airport

Status
Not open for further replies.
This whole situation is a lot like another random analogy - not exactly the same level, but comparable to reference to why I can see people are debating about this across 100,000's of websites less than ~24 hours since it happened.

It's like the city cop who parks in an non-designated parking spot to go do what they were doing - like a red zone, yellow zone, or handicapped zone.

A) If it wasn't an emergency situation, that is a complete outrage and an abuse of law-granted power -- the cop should withhold to transportation rules like any other standard US citizen.
B) To another, this may have fell within legal jurisdiction of the cop, depending on what exactly he was doing -- they are sovereign authority of that area.

Hard for me to have a concise opinion, both sides raise excellent points.
 
I think this is one of those cases where it is not black and white. A judgement must be exercised whether the congressman is being detained for illegal purposes. Was the TSA trying to detain him in order to block him from voting in Congress? Highly doubtful.

I mean, let's be honest, the Constitution doesn't really think of everything. Is there something in there in order to solve these problems:

"Congressman goes crazy and goes on a shooting spree just before voting in Congress. Should he be detained or allowed to vote THEN detained?"

"Congressman gets shot just before voting in Congress. His doctor says that he needs surgery now. Congressman wants to vote before surgery. His doctor does not want to let him go because he's worried that he will die. Is his doctor trying to illegally detain him?"

We can come up with crazy scenarios like that. Highly improbable, but just trying to show that sometimes we can't rely on the Constitution to solve all problems. A simple exercise in judgement is needed. Look at why it is in the Constitution in the first place. The law exists to make it illegal to have people detain congressmen from voting. So were those people trying to detain them from voting for personal/political reasons?

Funny part about all of this? Rand and TSA are basically like "oh water under the bridge" and have already moved on.

Apparently, we haven't.
 
Duplicate post.

Here's a fun picture instead:

funny-pictures-cats-would-snap-if-they-had-thumbs.jpg
 
Daredevel7 said:
Funny part about all of this? Rand and TSA are basically like "oh water under the bridge" and have already moved on.

Apparently, we haven't.
Click to expand...

Just another case of "Our guy was wronged!" "Shut your piehole!"
 
Daredevel7 said:
I think this is one of those cases where it is not black and white. A judgement must be exercised whether the congressman is being detained for illegal purposes. Was the TSA trying to detain him in order to block him from voting in Congress? Highly doubtful.

I mean, let's be honest, the Constitution doesn't really think of everything. Is there something in there in order to solve these problems:

"Congressman goes crazy and goes on a shooting spree just before voting in Congress. Should he be detained or allowed to vote THEN detained?"
Click to expand...
Did you not read: "...except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace?"

"Congressman gets shot just before voting in Congress. His doctor says that he needs surgery now. Congressman wants to vote before surgery. His doctor does not want to let him go because he's worried that he will die. Is his doctor trying to illegally detain him?"
Click to expand...
It's the shooting that detained him. I imagine if the shooting happened at the Capitol, no one would be voting that day.

We can come up with crazy scenarios like that. Highly improbable, but just trying to show that sometimes we can't rely on the Constitution to solve all problems. A simple exercise in judgement is needed. Look at why it is in the Constitution in the first place. The law exists to make it illegal to have people detain congressmen from voting. So were those people trying to detain them from voting for personal/political reasons?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter about personal or political reasons. If a person in authority detains a Congressman going to or from the Capitol without that action coming under the "except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace" clause, then it's an illegal action.

Funny part about all of this? Rand and TSA are basically like "oh water under the bridge" and have already moved on.

Apparently, we haven't.
Click to expand...
Then quit posting. :lol:
 
Reba,

So, you are saying the alarm that was set off does not qualify as "except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace" clause?
 
Cheetah said:
Reba,

So, you are saying the alarm that was set off does not qualify as "except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace" clause?
Click to expand...

How about they turn off the alarm and just use the flashing lights?
 
Daredevel7 said:
I didn't know that one can be detained for treason/felony without trial.....?
Click to expand...

well - one would have to be caught in action such as DUI/punching someone/etc. or have an arrest warrant for it
 
saywhatkid said:
Just wondering; if he had to use the airport toilet for a "sit-down procedure," and there was a long line, would the Constitution require all those folks waiting for a toilet to step aside?

Sorry, just had to toss this out there. :wave:
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn't. The Constitution protects Congressmen from those with law enforcement authority from detaining them.
 
Cheetah said:
Reba,

So, you are saying the alarm that was set off does not qualify as "except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace" clause?
Click to expand...
Did you read my post about the definition of breach of the peace? The explanation is there.
 
Reba said:
Did you read my post about the definition of breach of the peace? The explanation is there.
Click to expand...

I did read it. But until this goes to court, I doubt we will have an agreement here. I can see both the detainment and the breach of peace being contested. Don't hold your breath, I don't see anyone suing anyone any time soon over this issue.
 
Cheetah said:
I did read it. But until this goes to court, I doubt we will have an agreement here. I can see both the detainment and the breach of peace being contested. Don't hold your breath, I don't see anyone suing anyone any time soon over this issue.
Click to expand...
I didn't say or expect that it would go to court or result in a suit. :)
 
Reba said:
No, it wouldn't. The Constitution protects Congressmen from those with law enforcement authority from detaining them.
Click to expand...

So, if a group of environmentalist wanted to prevent a known anti-environmentalist Congressional member from voting, they could employ a "s*it in" protest? :P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top