Bio not provided
My argument is this: Since Dan likes to (incorrectly) point out that if the Bill of Rights prohibit certain acts of the federal government then the rest of the Constitution allows everything else. The truth is that in Federalist #44, James Madison argued that since the Powers given to Congress in Article I, Section 8 are limited, they are the Ends, whereas the "Necessary and Proper" clause is the Means. Without the "Necessary and Proper" clause the Constitution would be a dead document (you can't grant powers and then tell them they can't use them). If the Federal Government has such broad powers only limited by the Bill of Rights, why, I ask, was the "Necessary and Proper" clause included? If the Federal Government had such broad and sweeping powers, the "necessary and proper" clause would have been unnecessary (no pun intended).
3 years ago on The Statist and the Straw Man: Answering Attacks on Tenthers
What you can also do, is not just sue individual TSA "agents" but liens on their property and homes as well as mess with their credit.
3 years ago on The TSA Won't Stop Itself. So The States Will.