I have a, possibly naive, question for Americans: Why isn't this a political issue? From all I read, TSA seems to be universally loathed. Then it should be easy to change in a democracy. Why is it so hard?
It's hard because we elect one representative and two senators to represent us on every issue. The highest-controversy issues get the spotlight, while other very important issues are ignored. There's no way to say "I like this about Rep. X, but don't like her stance on issue Y," in the voting booth.
This is why the federal government was intended to have limited, explicitly enumerated powers. Now if you so much as fart outdoors the feds claim it's interstate commerce and they have the right, nay, the obligation, to regulate.
That's not to say that interstate air travel is outside of the scope of the feds, but that there's so much scope creep in Congress that it's hard to focus on that come election season.
It's even worse, because Congress for years has been happily handing off it's responsibilities to the executive branch. It's to the point that it's barely controversial that the President can order the assassination or indefinite detention of an American citizen, if the President declares that citizen an enemy combatant in an undeclared war on an idea.
Do you have any citations or evidence that the government was "intended to have limited, explicitly enumerated powers" because of the deficiencies in representative democracy? Or are you just saying that?
The idea of enumerated powers is in Article I, and it's made explicit in the tenth amendment that powers not delegated to the US are reserved for the states or the people. The implication is that it's desirable for the US to have only the powers that require a federal government, as opposed to acting as a catch-all to dictate policy for the states.
Article I of the US Constitution deals with Congress. Section 1 is a introduction and establishes the House and the Seante. Sections 2-6 deal with how to elect congressman and the "floor rules" basically. Section 7 is how a bill becomes a law.
Section 8 specifically lists the powers reserved to Congress. Neither the Executive branch nor the Supreme Court is given this treatment. (Side note: patents are specifically listed here: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;")
Section 9 deals with a few other things such as immigration, ex post facto laws, taxes and spending money. Section 10 is rules on what states can't do.
Furthermore, Amendment 10 reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The government does have power to step out of this specific list, due to the "necessary and proper" clause, but in general this used to be considered a clause where the government can do whatever is "necessary and proper" to exercise their duty to govern within their enumerated powers. This is spelled out by Justice Marshall in McCulloch vs. Maryland: "If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect."
However, later on in his opinion he also states: "This Government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle that it can exercise only the powers granted to it would seem too apparent to have required to be enforced by all those arguments which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted. But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise so long as our system shall exist."
This has always been a tricky question. There is a limit on Congress' power. While it is not limited simply to those listed in the Constitution, everybody that I know thinks Congress has overstepped their boundaries countless times.
The trouble is that we the people are no longer invested in our government and don't properly hold them to account. We elect people who benefit me the most, as opposed to the country. This is normal, but when you couple that with a court system that is overloaded and an executive branch that is, frankly, out of control and insanely drunk with power, bad government happens.
Maybe the fix is to be able to elect representatives that represent us on more finely grained issues (perhaps even including which issues we elect reps for).
Imagine being able to break things down so that we elect economic & taxation reps separately from the people who make laws. Sure, there's already some split between the House & Senate, but they're not exactly compartmentalized in the way I'm envisioning right now.
A solution would be to make sure that representatives who have initiatives most people really disagree with (as opposed to simply voting for them) don't get another term. Lamar Smith would be a good example. Takes a bit of coordination, but it'd probably be effective enough.
The States are not a democracy. They are a democratic (all citizens) republic (government by proxy vote). See nitrogen''s reply.
A democracy would indeed find it easy to change such things as the TSA. Unfortunately a democracy would also find it easy to, say, change the rules of evidence governing proof of your guilt, because their perception of you is that you are bad and need to be punished, and the court system is one way to do that.
It is the tragedy of democracies that it is easy to make major decisions hastily whose consequences are either not understood well or understood all too well by a few for their own advantage.
Protecting minorities from being run over by the majority. Focusing on voting implies that two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner made a democratic decision.
Protection of minorities include at least freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, property rights, the rule of law and strong, independent institutions to enforce these.
Voting is mostly useful for facilitating peaceful periodic transfers of power, as opposed to chaotic, even bloody, revolutions.
Its all about prioritizing. As much as the TSA may be a now, 30 minute inconvenience, there are so many more serious problems to solve. IMO it would be irresponsible of a candidate to position their political platform around improving the TSA which affects the avg american probably once or twice a year at most.
Meanwhile you have a struggling economy, attempts to ban scientific progress, shutting down the internet, inequality for minorities, the list goes on
Yeah, I guess yours and nitrogen's explanations, taken together, can explain a large part of it. OTOH, low proportion of people who cross borders (esp. compared to Europe); OTOH, the nature of representative democracy (as opposed to direct democracy).
Because admitting that we can't exclude the very occasional bad outcome would undermine the assumption of government omnipotence underlying our current political model.
Our system is nowhere near a direct democracy at the federal level. Our party system makes this worse as very few people willing to join a party will leave it over issues.
Maybe because many Americans understand that in this changed security environment, such kinds of check are necessary. America has been very successful in preventing a repeat of 9/11. Surely TSA deserves some credit for that?
I may be the only one thinking like this, but as an Indian, we live in constant fear of attacks. And I find these checks a necessity. Inconvenient, yes. Humiliating, perhaps. But surely necessary?
How do they deserve credit? Their security procedures are demonstrably flawed. And, of course, the most obvious relevant point: terrorists can do many things other than hijack planes, many of which are outside the TSA's jurisdiction.
We don't have the equivalent of the TSA here in Australia and I don't feel any less safe for it.
There is no "changed security environment." That's a myth created by fear mongers who support garbage like the TSA. Life is dangerous, do it long enough, you die. That was true before 9/11 and it's true now. There are bad people out there, that was true before 9/11 and it's true now. Living in a free, open society may be more dangerous in some regards than living in a tightly regulated society.... true before, true now.
Freedom is it's own end: true before, true now.
And never mind that the TSA does absolutely zilch to make us any safer anyway.
No. Not on 9/10, and not on 9/12. "Changed security environment?"
Nothing has changed. There have always been terrorists. 9/11 was just the first time this particular kind of attack was used.
That vulnerability was patched out the very next day (or otherwise quickly) - locked cockpit doors and air marshalls. Add to that the bonus of any guy standing up to hijack a plane will likely be throttled by angry passengers.
These checks are _not_ a necessity. We could go back to private screeners and metal detectors and be safe enough.
While I agree that "America has been very successful in preventing a repeat of 9/11," the truth is that this is utterly separate from what the TSA is involved in. The US has focused much more counterintelligence on al-Qaeda and bombed the crap out of them and assassinated their leader, and US civilians now know that they cannot tolerate being passive members in a hijacking and will take down a hijacker even if it means their lives. (It might be the case that their Federal Air Marshals service also deserves some tiny bit of credit, but I am hesitant to allow a Trusted Officer to board a plane with a gun -- it introduces new vulnerabilities on how you verify that someone is Trusted in the first place, either as a passenger or as an airport? and perhaps the terrorists can now steal weapons from the Air Marshals or bribe them).
The measures that we're upset about are due to some prominent security failures of the TSA, mostly to do with private individuals using plastic explosives. The most prominent were the shoe bomber (thus now we take off our shoes) and the underwear bomber (thus now you must either let them take a naked picture of you, or else submit to the Freedom Fondling of your genitals to look for such things). However, other intrusive regulations like "don't take a bottle of Pepsi on-board, it will be confiscated" come from a failed "liquid explosives" plan which we caught before they put it into action. The underwear and shoe bombs got right through the TSA's security screening, and were defeated by passengers noticing that people were trying to set weird things on fire.
People have been upset about the stupidity of airport security since before 2001; George Carlin's rant on airport security was in 1999, you can find it on YouTube easily. His ringing words, "Haven't found anything yet, haven't found one bomb in one bag" still rings true, surprisingly enough. We even found plastic explosive charges in cargo planes -- but only because counterintelligence sources intercepted the information of the plan and told us where to look. These guys digging around in your bags never did.
Let me tell you what's wrong here, in one brief statement. You know what happened when I last went through a naked body scanner? It went off loudly. You would think that this means that I would be a very sorry person indeed. No. They lazily took me aside, looked at where the computer software had drawn a circle (around my head), decided that it was probably detecting my ponytail as a false alarm, and whisked me on my way.
Wait, you say, you mean their alarms went off and they yawned? That's correct. Your chance of being a real unidentified terrorist is probably smaller than one in a hundred million. Their machine's false positive rate is probably larger than one in a thousand. That means that even if their machine goes off, there's only a one-in-a-hundred-thousand chance that you're a serious threat. The officer who deals with you will be conditioned by the last hundred non-threatening people he has very thoroughly investigated, and has started to say, "okay, yeah, boring. This person looks as trustworthy as the last hundred. I guess I'll let them pass."
I don't know how al-Qaeda feels about our new TSA policies, but it's probably laughable when compared to their fear of our military drones. The TSA probably doesn't make any terrorist afraid.
