Federal Airport Security???

[retired]

Okay, perhaps I have been retired too long! But will someone please tell me what authority the Federal Government has to federalize airport security workers? What part of the constitution gives the feds that authority? Airports are owned and operated by local municipalities for the most part, they are not a federal function!

What is to prevent them from federalizing the bartenders at the airports, or the shoe shine stands?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Retired

[Zamboni]

Never mind the constitutional issues. Are we really prepared to trust private industry to provide security. Private industry is out to make money. As such, they will give the lowest pay, least expensive training, etc as possible. They will cut corners and we'll not get much change. I don't think the feds will be a lot better but at least the workers would get better pay and training and the turnover rate wouldn't be so high. St. Louis airport had over 400% turnover every year among security. Thats the biggest problem with the whole deal. No one sticks around long enough to become competent at the job.

[klar]

I believe that legislation can be passed that deals with the federalization of airport security check points. To prove a point why this is needed look at one of the main airports in this country Chicago O'hare airport. It is in the top ten busiest airports and the other day a man walked past security check point with four knifes mace and a stun gun. To board a aircraft. This guy was stopped at the check point where he had two knives on his person that were caught and removed but the four knives the can of mace and the stun gun were all in his carry on and were not found. This shows you that there is a need to be addressed.

I guess the fact that security has tightened up you are still dealing with under paid personel and still those people being paid by the airplines. I would feel a lot better in traveling this nations airways if I knew that the person next to me is not carring a knife or a stun gun. Something has to change why not let it be a federalized job?

Klar

[DesertRat]

Originally posted by Zamboni:
[QB]Never mind the constitutional issues./QB]

WTF

[retired]

Zamboni,

Are you serious, "never mind the constitutional issues"?

Retired

[John from Maryland]

The Constitution gives the federal government authority to regulate interstate commerce. It would certainly be impractical to expect the states to regulate aviation. Aviation has always been the province of federal agencies.

[klar]

Not everything in Aviation is regulated by the federal govenrment. Granted most of the rules and regs are FAA but a lot of the aviation industry is privately owned corps that have some of their own rules and regs. The FAA covers all the airports nationwide as a set of rules to make it all uniformed but each airport can make other rules to make thier airport more workable for them.

Klar

[jellybean40]

Our own commercial planes were never used against us before as weapons of war. i think once that happened, the government should be able to step in and try to make it safer. it seems obvious that the security workers were not doing an adequate job of protecting the country at a time of war. i dont know how the laws are written, so i cant speak on the legality of it.

[Zamboni]

I'm serious about never mind the constitutional issues. I don't think there is anywhere in it that deals with airport security. I guess I'm trying to say its irrelevant. This is now a matter of national security since airplanes have been used as weapons of mass destruction. I think that the gov should have little consitutional problem protecting its citizens from these weapons of mass destruction.

[remprocman]

What part of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from federalizing security at the airports? I don’t think the security should be federalized, (because of their failures with other federal law enforcement agencies, especially the INS) but to say the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction resembles the rhetoric of anti-government extremist views.

[BrickCop]

I'm with Zam on this one. Too much is at stake to leave in airport screeners who've lateral tranferred from Burger King.

I'm not sure but under the old system didn't the FAA oversee or indirectly monitor the airport security procedures? If so, that would prove more than just Fed supervision is necessary. Every plane is a potential missle which should be protected accordingly.

[kd5hqd]

I'm with Brickcop and Zamboni. They're out to make money, and our safety gets curtailed in the process. When I get old enough to pay taxes, I know I would rather pay a little more and know for sure that better trained people are watching bags who are actually holding a decent salary as opposed to saving a few pennies and having my plane flown into a building.


Tex
KD5HQD

[retired]

Remprocman,

The question should be, what part of the constitution permits it?

If I remember my constitutional law classes, the constitution states what the federal Government is permitted to do, everything else is reserved to the states. The first ten amendments are "Declaratory and Restrictive clauses".

And yes, I am aware of Article one, section eight as it refers to the interstate commerce clause. I just don't agree that security at aocal airport falls under that section. And just why would federal employees do a better job? Does that mean that federal police do a better job than local cops?

Unlike some of you, I am not willing to abandon or forsake any constitutional freedom. Once the federal government takes a way a freedom, do you think they will ever give it back?

More and more I read in the news about how Federal Agents did this, and Federal Agents did that. Well, I still support local control.

Now I know you are a federal employee and I can understand why you would support a Federal Police Force.

I do agree that the current group of private security companies have done less than an adequate job, However, I am still opposed to federalizing it. Instead, I would support hiring retired law enforcment officers, and pay them a livable wage. I would bet that a group of retired cops with 20 to 30 years experience would do a fantastic job with airport security, and it would still be locally controlled. Don't get me wrong, I personally am not looking for a job of any kind, but I know a whole bunch of retired cops that would jump at the chance.

I also respect your opinion and am glad you have one. Nothing wrong with the two of us disagreeing.

Retired

P.S. No, I am not an anti-government extremist!

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: retired ]

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: retired ]

[remprocman]

Retired,

I too respect your opinion, and agree with you for the most part. I just think you’re a little too extreme when it comes to the federal government not having a role in law enforcement. I didn’t think you were an anti-government extremist, I said some of your statements resembled the rhetoric of one.

I wonder where civil rights would be if the government hadn’t stepped in to enforce Brown v. Board of Education. And I’m still confused about your post (post about prior drug use) when you stated it’s not the feds business if a police administration allowed their officers to use marijuana. Does this mean it’s not the feds business if a police administration allowed their officers to traffic marijuana?

Just for the record, I’m not in favor of a “federal police force.” The agents I work with (including myself) are very conservative and protective of the Constitution and the states rights. However, the Supreme Court has granted the federal government broad authority to regulate commerce, and in my opinion, I think they’ve acted responsibly.

When the government has overstepped their boundaries (for example, requiring state officials to conduct background checks on gun buyers) the Court has quickly intervened to strike them down. I think federalizing airport security is a bad idea for the reasons I previously stated, but I don’t think it’s outside the governments commerce authority and responsibility to protect the American public. There are within state flights; however, the fact that most airports offer state to state and international flights makes this an interstate commerce and national security issue.

I agree with your idea of hiring retired police officers for airport security. Most if not all of the U.S. Marshal’s employees (the guys in blue suits doing court security) I’ve met at the federal court buildings were retired police officers, and they do a great job.

PS: If I thought you were an anti-government extremist I would expect to see from: Couer d’ Alane, Idaho rather than a fellow Washingtonian at the bottom of your posts. (No disrespect to normal people living in Couer d’ Alane)

[retired]

Remprocman,

I appreciate your comments and I would like to clarify my position about the role of federal law enforcement. Certainly I believe there is a role for the federal government in law enforcement. Your job itself speaks for the need; our borders need you and your agency. The INS is needed, as is the Secret Service and the FBI. I only believe that too often the federal agencies involve themselves in matters that are best handled by local law enforcement. The worst offenders in my opinion are the ATF and the FBI.

I am still have the opinion that if a local law enforcement agency allows their officers to use MJ, it is still a local matter to resolve. The elected City Council members or elected County officials can handle the issue without the federal government intervening. The elected officials or City Manager or County Executive can step in and if necessary fire the Chief. And of course I don’t condone cops smoking MJ or for that matter using any drugs!

You and I have a difference of opinion about the intent of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. I believe that the federal government is using that clause to circumvent the original intent of the constitution, which states that the federal government is only allowed to do what the constitution says it can do. With a variety of interpretations of the commerce clause, the feds have involved themselves in every aspect of our lives. One can use the broadest interpretation of the clause, and a barber in Texas who uses parts shipped in from another state can fall under federal regulations. That is what I mean by an abuse of the constitution and the commerce clause. I really don’t think that was the original intent. Everything I have studied about the constitution says the authors were wary of an oppressive central government, and that was the reason for the addition of the Bill of Rights, which are further restrictions against the government.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Incidentally, I am guessing you are in the Blaine area? If so, I spent two years there in the Air Force.

Regards,

Retired