The obvious purpose of the clause is to prevent members of congress from being prevented from attendance in congress.

The senate IS in session today.

Not being allowed to fly will definitely prevent Paul from attending the Senate. His progress towards that goal has been arrested. Arrest doesn’t only mean handcuffs and locked doors.

TRANSITIVE VERB
ar?rest?ed past and past participle
ar?rest?ing present participle
ar?rests 3rd person present singular

1. criminal law take somebody into custody: to seize and take somebody into legal custody
2. stop something: to stop or slow something ( formal )
“a mechanism that arrests the motion of the flywheel”
3. take hold of something: to suddenly capture and hold something, especially somebody’s attention ( formal )
“an astonishing sight that arrested our attention”
4. seize something legally: to seize or detain something by legal authority ( formal )

An exception is made for breach of the piece which a DUI would reasonably fall under.
This is more an arrest for a search that is not even predicated on a “probable cause” pretext.

All of the folks who are debating that this was not an arrest haven’t read the definition of arrest or given the slightest thought to original intent.

Arrest doesn’t mean handcuffs and prison bars for the purpose of the clause. It means stopping him from attending a session of the senate. The means of doing this is not relevant. What if by “chance” he were accidentally put on a no fly list? Just before a seemingly “unimportant” vote?
Even the reason is not important because we might never know the reason for preventing his ability to cast a vote. Could be the work of some bureaucrat in some obscure agency who is affected by the legislationand has a buddy in the TSA who just happened to “notice” a glitch. That is not a grand conspiracy, just two guys.

Saying he could drive is ridiculous given the time differential between the two modes of transportation it would clearly unduly burden his ability to be present while the business of the senate is being conducted.
And it is THAT object for which the clause exists.

Could be as simple as SEIU wanted Paul to miss a vote and a shop steward got the word.
If not this time then next time after the precedent has been set.

For the purpose of the clause causing a congressmen to miss a vote or a speech is sufficient to call it arrested. Or stopped.
Otherwise we could have any sort of (non-official-definition-of) arrests being used to prevent members from participating in sessions.
Saying he must drive instead of fly is structurally the same as requiring he walk instead of ride a horse 200 years ago. It easily doubles or quadruples the travel time.

It does matter that they are unionized. Union members are less efficient and more prone to being obstinate with customers. They just don’t care.

The screening process is totally ineffective. The Terrrorist Safety Agency has never stopped a terrorist from doing anything. They serve only one purpose, to ensure if any more Islamonazi’s get onboard with a nail file NOBODY will have a pair of tweezers to fight back with.

They are totally ineffective. So much so that they had failure rates of 90% or more at detecting weapons BEFORE they CLASSIFIED their putried record so now we are supposed to believe that in SECRET they got better.
Right.

TSA can’t suck enough. If you think they are keeping you safe you are [Be respectful, or be banned.] [Be respectful, or be banned.] [Be respectful, or be banned.]

I can’t see anybody in DC having the “gravitas” to do anything.
But clearly the clause was meant to ensure members were not hindered by trivial matters from attending sessions of congress.

Since TSA itself is far outside the bounds of constitutional legality and they have proven to be utter failures at everything they do, it can only be classified as trivially preventing a senator from traveling freely to and from congress.

As Aesthete pointed out somewhere around here, it is impossible for TSA to make a legitimate case for detaining Paul on security grounds.

But it does lay the groundwork for future harrassment.

Glad to hear the change is rattling again.

After 224 years of talmudic interpretations by the Nazgul whose only effect, and likely only purpose, has been to obscure, denigrate and bastardize the constitution and common law principles; it is no surprise that learned men doubt the ground they stand on or universe they live in.

And hopefully without insult I will surrender to both of you the modern, nothing can ever be known for certain, view of the law and philosophy.

For better or worse you have both been through the Hogwarts school and have acquired a set of seeing stones that allow you to see the words between, beneath and under the plain language of the constitution and to conjure apparitions from the bones of common law.

And that is useful for we live in a world in which the foundations have been uprooted, logic has been banished and every written word can be “lawyershopped” into any other word.

On your point 1. JSob. I agree in the modern context and even in an ancient Bleak House sort of a way. Parties can always find a reason to contend and basis for believing themselves in the right.
On point 2. you are mostly wrong. I am not a particularly litigious fellow but the times I have been willing to spend the money and lawyer up, I have always, without exception, won in the end.
With a meager few exceptions, the only time spending the money doesn’t bring victory is when both sides are willing to spend the money. Then it comes down to who plays golf with the judge.

I’ll take the nation where common men, using common sense, can read the laws and the constitution and reach solid conclusions on what they mean. Yes, men will always disagree but then 12 men and women, will sit and listen to both sides, and apply their common sense without the filter of the judge?s seeing stones, and deliver a verdict that ordinary people can understand and see the justice in.

The reason GC, I can say “clearly” is because the clause either means that or is entirely without purpose. It doesn’t belong in the constitution at all if not to protect members from harassment.

Which brings us to the “Breach of The Peace” part of the equation. Was Paul “breaching the peace?”

One of the beautiful aspects of the whole common law framework was the ability of the common man to understand the law.
Bleak House occurred in the Court of Chancery. In a common law court it would have ended before the fortune was exhausted.

Breach of the peace is a common law term. To understand what it means we only need to examine what it would have meant, in the common law, in 1792.
Blackstone’s Commentaries, used pretty heavily during early America says :
1. The riotous assembling of twelve persons or more, and not dispersing upon proclamation.
2. Unlawful hunting.
3. Sending threatening letters or extortion.
4. To pull down or destroy any lock, sluice, or floodgate erected by authority of parliament on a navigable river
5.Affrays; the fighting of two or more persons in some public place.
6. Riots, routs, and unlawful assemblies must have three persons at least to constitute them.
7. Tumultuous petitioning. (of the first amendment kind.)
8. Forcible entry or detainer.
9. The offence of riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons.
10. Spreading false news, to make discord between the king and nobility.
11. False and pretended prophecies, with intent to disturb the peace.
12. Besides actual breaches of the peace, anything that tends to provoke or excite others to break it is an offence.
13. Of a nature very similar to challenges are libels, libelli famosi.

Obviously these are abbreviated and the actual text is a little longer. It is also true that the common law can by its nature evolve with the times. It is pretty clear Paul was doing nothing like what Blackstone describes.

The English definition according to Wikipedia “defines a breach of the peace as existing whether harm is actually done, or is likely to be done, to a person or his property, or a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, an unlawful assembly, or some other form of disturbance.”
The Scots definition from Wikipedia is “conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community.”
Seems farfetched to say Paul’s actions fit either description. There was no imminent harm nor is it likely anybody was alarmed.

Clearly (and I use that word in its full legal sense) Paul was not committing a Breach of The Peace.

For everybody who says he was committing a felony if TSA says so, we are totally in the midst then of executive branch terror. It is almost certain he was acting contrary to TSA procedures or regulations, if anything, not a defined law. These would be procedures or regulations promulgated by the executive branch.
If we are going to allow for those to constitute a felony or a Breach of the Peace (as required by Art 1 Sect 6) then at any time the President will be able to exert his regulatory power to punish the political opposition, hinder their attendance at congressional sessions, create any sort of mischief to force his will on congress.

Tens of thousands of pages of law, hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations, deliberately convoluted grammatical constructs and a nationwide system of conflicting bureaucracies, rent-seeking Friends-of-Bill, influence peddling courtiers and nobody willing to pull out the plain language of the constitution, stick it in the face of some scumbag TSA welfare recipient thug and say eat this you PoS.

Not one damn person willing to draw a line in the sand and say HERE WE SHALL STAND except that his motives are questioned, his line is critiqued for exact placement and the very ground he stands on is undermined by his own side.

All of that is bad enough but worse is this judicial system with its stare decisis that builds error upon error, extinguishing common sense and replacing it with some hellish construct of intellect that turns murder into a choice and a common cold into interstate commerce.

This is how a tyranny is built.

And it is not just legal laureates.
NOBODY wants to just look at the plain language, set in the time it was written, and bluntly say what it says.

Everybody wants to climb up on their chair like they saw a mouse and wait for the “experts” in black to pontificate on what english words mean.

Instead of vocally proclaiming to these witch kings, “WE KNOW WHAT IT MEANS AND YOU’D BETTER NOT TRY ANY S!!T.”

We sat around on pins and needles waiting for these creeps to decide Heller because we didn’t KNOW we have a right to bear arms until they told us.

And now we wait for their enlightment regarding ObamCare.

This is not how liberty works.