4th Amendment Wear has a message to the TSA

[The_Dude 1,142]

It's ignorant because the assumption is because you want to do action A, that you suspend your constitutional rights. That's not the case at all. It's that type of thinking that leads to an overbearing government as well.

"Well, you have your rights, but only if you turn left, left, right, walk 10 yards straight ahead, act ilke a duck, and then walk backwards for 30 paces."

The last time I checked as well, I didn't see an asterick on your airline ticket that says you must forfeit your 4th amendment rights to board this plane. Nor do I see that posted anywhere in the airports when I get there as well.

What constitutional rights are being suspended?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The key here is "against unreasonable searches and siezures". What you consider unreasonable is aparently considered by people who actually did study law to not be so. Histrionics aside, the new TSA measures are a horrible idea because they will yield no results.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What constitutional rights are being suspended?

The key here is "against unreasonable searches and siezures". What you consider unreasonable is aparently considered by people who actually did study law to not be so. Histrionics aside, the new TSA measures are a horrible idea because they will yield no results.

define unreasonable. That definition can change in an instant. The government could 'decide' that it's 'reasonable' to do random searches of houses in your neighborhood because someone reported a TV being stolen from the electronics store down the road.....

There's always a slippery slope and the TSA keeps pushing its boundries. Metal dectors are one thing. Scanning luggage is one thing. Removing shoes is one thing... Sexually assaulting people is a completely different scenario entirely.

When you give people an inch, they are likely to go ahead and take that mile. Especially when we're talking about the government. It's not always intentional mind you, but it does happen piece by piece whether it's for a real sense of security or a false one like this.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

P&V,

I guess we shouldn't be required to carry our Driver's Licenses or Proof of Insurance when we drive after all it's a violation of our Constitutional rights to be forced to carry ID and why should the Gubberment be able to force us to insure our cars, right?

It is a privilege to be able to drive a car or fly on an airplane. Like most privileges there are conditions that we must agree to.

Your rights being suspended is not equal to your giving consent for a search, you can easily not consent but then you aren't allowed access to the privilege and will need to find another mode of transport.

If you don't like the scanner & pat-downs then just say that but don't try to make it about Constitutional Rights when it so clearly isn't.

I find it ironic how the same people how cry about the Constitution being ignored are the ones who want to apply it to everything which in turn dilutes it.

[The_Dude 1,142]

define unreasonable. That definition can change in an instant. The government could 'decide' that it's 'reasonable' to do random searches of houses in your neighborhood because someone reported a TV being stolen from the electronics store down the road.....

There's always a slippery slope and the TSA keeps pushing its boundries. Metal dectors are one thing. Scanning luggage is one thing. Removing shoes is one thing... Sexually assaulting people is a completely different scenario entirely.

When you give people an inch, they are likely to go ahead and take that mile. Especially when we're talking about the government. It's not always intentional mind you, but it does happen piece by piece whether it's for a real sense of security or a false one like this.

un·rea·son·a·ble   /ʌnˈrizənəbəl, -ˈriznə-/ Show Spelled[uhn-ree-zuh-nuh-buhl, -reez-nuh-

–adjective

1.not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational: an unreasonable person.

In legal terms, reasonable or unreasonable is quite broad and subjective. But, it's not like the government is conducting searches and seizures without a warrant.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

It is a privilege to be able to drive a car or fly on an airplane. Like most privileges there are conditions that we must agree to.

Interesting.

Question: do you think the American people would agree that a in order to be able to drive one's car on public roads, one would first have to consent that any law enforcement or government official had the right to search their car and them, down to the underpants, if they so desire, or do you think they would feel this would be unreasonable and a violation of the 4th Amendment?

After all, anybody who owns or drives a car could load it with C4 and park it downtown in a parking garage in-midst of a huge shopping mall . . .

Edited December 1, 2010 by Just Bob

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

P&V,

I guess we shouldn't be required to carry our Driver's Licenses or Proof of Insurance when we drive after all it's a violation of our Constitutional rights to be forced to carry ID and why should the Gubberment be able to force us to insure our cars, right?

It is a privilege to be able to drive a car or fly on an airplane. Like most privileges there are conditions that we must agree to.

Your rights being suspended is not equal to your giving consent for a search, you can easily not consent but then you aren't allowed access to the privilege and will need to find another mode of transport.

If you don't like the scanner & pat-downs then just say that but don't try to make it about Constitutional Rights when it so clearly isn't.

I find it ironic how the same people how cry about the Constitution being ignored are the ones who want to apply it to everything which in turn dilutes it.

Not completely true. In this case if you do not provide consent in this situation you can be charged and arrested (or so the TSA says).

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Not completely true. In this case if you do not provide consent in this situation you can be charged and arrested (or so the TSA says).

Again, you provide consent to TSA Security Measures WHEN YOU ENTER THE AIRPORT which is a protected/restricted area. By the time you reach the scanners you've already consented. Every airport in the US has signs posted warning you that all persons entering the airport are subject to search by security personal.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Interesting.

Question: do you think the American people would agree that a in order to be able to drive one's car on public roads, one would first have to consent that any law enforcement or government official had the right to search their car and them, down to the underpants, if they so desire, or do you think they would feel this would be unreasonable and a violation of the 4th Amendment?

After all, anybody who owns or drives a car could load it with C4 and park it downtown in a parking garage in-midst of a huge shopping mall . . .

No I doubt that would fly but cars aren't the same as airplanes.

We do agree to certain concessions in order to drive just nothing that severe.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Again, you provide consent to TSA Security Measures WHEN YOU ENTER THE AIRPORT which is a protected/restricted area. By the time you reach the scanners you've already consented. Every airport in the US has signs posted warning you that all persons entering the airport are subject to search by security personal.

Then they should have security at the door like other protected places such as courthouses.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Then they should have security at the door like other protected places such as courthouses.

I'll also add that consent can be revoked up to a point. In an airport it when your bag crosses the xray or you cross the metal detector. There has never been a ruling for activity beyond security that i can find. I'm not saying the situation can change but this part of the law has not been clarified.