A question for those who think the TSA Pat Downs violate their 4th Amendment rights...

I keep hearing and reading that the new TSA pat downs violate a traveler's 4th Amendment rights:

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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 United States Constitution

If this is true, then isn't the same true when you have to go through a security checkpoint when entering a Federal Building? OK, they aren't patting you down, but they do x-ray your stuff, make you go through a metal detector, and wand you if it beeps...

But let's go back to the airport for a moment, shall we?

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The United States Constitution

Well, those evil bastards certainly don't let you take your gun onboard an airplane, so they must be infringing on your right to bear arms then, right???

No on all counts. When we do certain things, or go to certain places, we agree to give up certain 'rights'. When you go to an amusement park, you give up the right to sue if you are injured. It say's so right on your ticket. Well, when you purchase an airline ticket, you agree to be searched, to have your belongings searched and to not have any weapons of any type on your person or in your possesion. It just goes with the territory.

So, if you don't want to go through the body scanners, or have Mr. TSA man to touch your junk, then you DO have the RIGHT to take a train, take a bus, drive yourself, ride a bike, or walk to the destination of your choice. But do understand that if you do choose to make use of air travel, you are consenting to any and all of the methods currently in use, or that may come into use further down the road. But it is YOUR choice to do so!

to the op:

I think you are missing the point of how the courts have defined "reasonable." That being, the notion of a "reasonable" search or "reasonable" restrictions on the possession of weapons by a U. S. citizen.

These things play out in courts all over the place every day. For example, the US. supreme court just decided that certain municipalities' gun restrictions were not "reasonable", and those laws were soundly overturned.

Just because a law has been passed or deemed legitimate by some authority figure does not make it so.

Juries help decide what reasonable is, also.

An issue is that with the "enhanced patdowns", a single cabinet department unilaterally decided to institute a rule that is UNPRECIDENTED. Now, when you enter an airport, there is the automatic assumption that you are guilty and you are automatically deprived of the security of your person while in the course of your legal travels. A barely literate "TSA agent" now has the "authority" to put his hands into your pants. The issue has not had a chance to work its way through the courts and, because of the generally tolerant and law abiding nature of our culture, the public appears to be trying to "go with the flow" until the time that the legal system has churned out a resolution.

My guess is that the searches, as they are currently conducted, are likely to be quashed eventually. Just like the DC gun restrictions were shot down by the US Supremes.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
So, if you don't want to go through the body scanners, or have Mr. TSA man to touch your junk, then you DO have the RIGHT to take a train, take a bus, drive yourself, ride a bike, or walk to the destination of your choice. But do understand that if you do choose to make use of air travel, you are consenting to any and all of the methods currently in use, or that may come into use further down the road. But it is YOUR choice to do so!

Actually, the only right that you have would be walking...the rest you got to fill out the proper legal work and jump through the correct hurdles (license and such)..even the bike is not a right to ride around on public grounds...which incidently I disagree with. the car and train thing I see valid.

also, with walking, you cannot walk down the center of a street, cannot jaywalk, etc..so there are even caveats to that which may be murky in its constitutionality...however, common sense has allowed for those challenges to be absent..meh, give it a month and someone somewhere will be demanding their constitutional right to walk down the center of the street and hold up traffic. heh

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


i agree, except that when i purchase an airline ticket, it does not tell me that i'm sacrificing the rights and securities that the constitution provides me on the back or the front. at least not yet. so in that respect, there has been NO official agreement between me, the government, or the airline, that i have accepted their conditions like there are when i go into an amusement park. in fact the only person who has suggested that when i purchase an airline ticket i am giving up my rights was a single TSA employee. no other higher official, even mr. pistole the head of TSA has suggested that we give up rights when we buy plane tickets, only that stringent security efforts are put in place and that it is best for us. you see the diff? though i understand that security is good for us, some things do cross the line. in the hundred years we have had commercial airlines, how many planes have been high jacked and blown up or purposely crashed? please, if they wanted to save lives and money, they would take half the funding from TSA and use it to place checkpoints on california highways where people risk their lives and the safety of others without second thought by not wearing seatbelts, driving while talking on a cell or texting, drinking and driving, erratic behavior, etc, or increasing aid to education institutes, or funding community projects....or if they wanted to end domestic terrorism altogether, restructure the foreign policy. no? then use the money that would be spent on all the scanners, take the body patting employess and give them a tazer gun, and train them and employ them to be air marshalls, using the money from the scanners to pay for it all, including the plane tickets for the marshalls. one marshall every 5 rows on either side of the rows. that's a lot of marshalls for one plane, but it's also a lot of security, which is what we want.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


The fact is these security measures that effect ALL travellers would not stop a terrorist with half a brain..
There are ways around all these measures and anyone planning an attack would utilise the flaws..

So basically they are a useless measure that just pi%%$ off the general population while making the select few richer than they already are..
They are also a view into what will be rolled out into other aspects of our lives..
And thats scary...

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I keep hearing and reading that the new TSA pat downs violate a traveler's 4th Amendment rights:

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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 United States Constitution

If this is true, then isn't the same true when you have to go through a security checkpoint when entering a Federal Building? OK, they aren't patting you down, but they do x-ray your stuff, make you go through a metal detector, and wand you if it beeps...

But let's go back to the airport for a moment, shall we?

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The United States Constitution

Well, those evil bastards certainly don't let you take your gun onboard an airplane, so they must be infringing on your right to bear arms then, right???

No on all counts. When we do certain things, or go to certain places, we agree to give up certain 'rights'. When you go to an amusement park, you give up the right to sue if you are injured. It say's so right on your ticket. Well, when you purchase an airline ticket, you agree to be searched, to have your belongings searched and to not have any weapons of any type on your person or in your possesion. It just goes with the territory.

So, if you don't want to go through the body scanners, or have Mr. TSA man to touch your junk, then you DO have the RIGHT to take a train, take a bus, drive yourself, ride a bike, or walk to the destination of your choice. But do understand that if you do choose to make use of air travel, you are consenting to any and all of the methods currently in use, or that may come into use further down the road. But it is YOUR choice to do so!

Last I checked unless you are wealthy enough to afford a private jet, you have no alternative to cross country or intercontinental travel. The Government has the commercial flights within this country monopolized under their scrutiny/rule.

When practical I do chose alternative methods of travel, but visiting family in NY from California on the holidays with only 3 days off work, anything other then commercial flight isn't going to happen.

Again the people are forced to make unfair unnecessary choices to accomplish what this day in age should be a simple and routine thing to do. IE flying across the country.

Because the government decided they own the air, they control what is in the air, and can dictate how and when that happens whenever they want, they have that power and you cannot avoid it.

Interestingly enough, prior to modern air travel when people "owned" land or a property the extents of the ownership weren't restricted to land, the ownership included the airspace above their property as well, but because this was a "road block" to efficient commercialization of air travel, they did away with it. Now the government are the only people who can control air space.

It may seem like we have a "choice" in all this but ultimately we don't.

I for one am trying not to make any air travel plans until this gets squared away, because I will be considered a domestic terrorist for my hostility to their TSA tyranny.

Just for interest..
I had to fly yesterday..Im in Australia..
I flew out of Melbourne, Tullarmarine airport..
There was just the normal Xray for carry on luggage and the old walk through metal detector..

Good to see Australia is not the same as the US on this one....

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
But do understand that if you do choose to make use of air travel, you are consenting to any and all of the methods currently in use,

No,
I am not.

I agree with you, but the operative word in the 4th amendment is "Unreasonable". Is it reasonable to have my bag x-rayed and go through a metal detector? sure it is. However I think that most people would agree that having your balls grabbed, having naked pictures taken of you, and having a woman who is a cancer survivor take her breast prosthesis out is unreasonable. I guess it all depends on what one considers to be unreasonable. What is for me may not be for you.

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
But do understand that if you do choose to make use of air travel, you are consenting to any and all of the methods currently in use,

No,
I am not.

Agreed, NO contract is allowed to break the law..Simply signing it does NOT alter that concept..
Thats why with have the ACCC in Australia, to charge companies with missleading and illegal contracts is one of the aspects they investigate..

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
I agree with you, but the operative word in the 4th amendment is "Unreasonable". Is it reasonable to have my bag x-rayed and go through a metal detector? sure it is. However I think that most people would agree that having your balls grabbed, having naked pictures taken of you, and having a woman who is a cancer survivor take her breast prosthesis out is unreasonable. I guess it all depends on what one considers to be unreasonable. What is for me may not be for you.

Yes, laws seem to always be written with vague wording..
If I was cynical I'd say it was done deliberately.

reply to post by badgerprints

As we live in a constitutional republic my rights are supposed to be protected from the mob by the government who is not only noticeably negligent here; they are the ones doing the infringing.

The constitution doesn't give me rights. it reiterates the contract between the people and the government they consent to to protect those rights. Especially those annotated in the bill of rights which are NOT the ONLY rights inherent in the citizen.
I own my body; I have the right to be secure fron unreasonable search by my government : I can give them permission I.E. the PRIVILEGE to search me and I can with draw such at any time for any reason.

Freedom isn't free its hard work so we don't stand up when its easier to just take the scan and get to the plane.TheGovt doesn;'t want to hear any limitations on its power so it makes it its very hard to argue cohesively when you are being tased with 20,000 volts and are writhing in a pool of your own urine.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
When we do certain things, or go to certain places, we agree to give up certain 'rights'.

...we agree to give up certain rights?... gosh, i dont know about that one...i understand that it looks that way to many people - but - really, in someone else's domain, their right to run their biz as they see fit supercedes your "need" to tell them how to run their biz...

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
When you go to an amusement park, you give up the right to sue if you are injured. It say's so right on your ticket.

...no, lol, thats a totally different ballgame... you dont have a right to dictate how they run their biz but that does not mean they are never legally liable for negligence... it does not matter what is on the ticket they sell you or even if they have a gazillion disclaimer posters up all over the park - if someone is injured or killed due to the park's negligence, you can and should sue...

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
understand that if you do choose to make use of air travel, you are consenting to any and all of the methods currently in use, or that may come into use further down the road. But it is YOUR choice to do so!

...i agree that its the patron's choice to fly or not...

...why would you frequent any establishment that treated you badly?... you'd have to be half-nuts to do that and totally nuts to expect things to change because you dont approve, since they've proven they dont give a damn about what you think of them...

...if you dont like how the business treats you, dont spend your money there - simple...

reply to post by 46ACE

Somehow I believe we will be talking to the wind on any of this,
This countries last hope relies on a congress to flex its muscle and put the federal government back in its place.
Sadly I dont see that happening all too quickly either.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
So, if you don't want to go through the body scanners, or have Mr. TSA man to touch your junk, then you DO have the RIGHT to take a train, take a bus, drive yourself, ride a bike, or walk to the destination of your choice. But do understand that if you do choose to make use of air travel, you are consenting to any and all of the methods currently in use, or that may come into use further down the road. But it is YOUR choice to do so!

Agreed, which is why I canceled my flight and drove eight hours for Thanksgiving. I am going to boycott the airport, and I hope enough other people do to completely cripple the the industry. Maybe then the TSA will understand that we are not willing to give up our privacy for their joke of an attempt at "security."

reply to post by MMPI2


last post tonight:


I'm not afraid of the radiation (very infrequent flyer):

I’m not afraid of showing my. “winky”:

I ’m afraid of what’s next.

For every person who says” whats the big deal?” Or “if you are not a terrorist you have nothing to hide”:

The ratchet in the machine to put us under total control moves forward a “click.” Patriot act: “click”; ”Surveillance infrastructure :” click” military commissions act: “click “; subverting of posse comittatus: “click” formation of Northcom “doubleclick. North American union (spp?): “click”
Its to those folks I ‘d like to say” wake up, You’re not helping to slow the loss of freedoms but greasing the slides.

Look around. As Sinclair Lewis wrote “. It can happen here. It is happening here…”

reply to post by 46ACE


It's the doctrine of incrementalism. The liberal/progressive/statist factions use it very well.

reply to post by MMPI2


I think you missed the idea of the whole OP... If you purchase an airline ticket, and you attempt to enter the gate area of an airport, you are consenting to a search of your person, whether it be reasonable or unreasonable, right down to a full on body cavity search if Security Personnel feel it's necessary. Your Constitutional rights DO NOT apply in this case! PERIOD!

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by MMPI2

 

I think you missed the idea of the whole OP... If you purchase an airline ticket, and you attempt to enter the gate area of an airport, you are consenting to a search of your person, whether it be reasonable or unreasonable, right down to a full on body cavity search if Security Personnel feel it's necessary. Your Constitutional rights DO NOT apply in this case! PERIOD!

but intellectual agreements can never be justified in court, especially when this agreement has never been dictated as an actual condition when you purchase a ticket. therefore, to say i agreed to give up my rights is a flat out lie. i never did agree and no one ever told me this is the case. they only told me im going to be radiated and patted down for my own good. actually dictate to me verbally or have a warning at the ticket counter or on the ticket itself that my constitutional rights are revoked while at and airport or on an airplane, then i will probably so ok, only because i need an airplane when travelling internationally, and so i can for that moment sacrifice my comfort for my time. but they don't give these warnings, and have not made formal conditions, so atm i feel violated.

When the state is most corrupt, then the laws are most multiplied. _Tacitus

I know you think that if the citizens are most corrupt the laws are multiplied by the Gov (state) but the truth is... It is when the Gov(state) is most corrupt the more numerous the laws for the citizens is what Tacitus means.

If anyone should know how it works it would be Tacitus: Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117) was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. The surviving portions of his two major works—the Annals and the Histories—examine the reigns of the Roman Emperors Tiberius, Claudius, Nero and those who reigned in the Year of the Four Emperors.

The Gov (state) shows you right in the open that certain gov officials are exempt from these airport security laws. Do you actually believe that someone with Homeland Security is safer than joe six pack working at a construction site?