- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 53,409
- Reaction score
- 31,478
- Location
- Northern California
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
nope... which is why I'd choose the scanner. Problem solved.
Last I checked the fourth amendment doesn't apply to searches where consent is given, as is the case in these TSA scans.
Sorry, but there is still no Constitutional violation here.
There is a difference between bringing a lawsuit and having a good case. There is a lawsuit, yes, but the argument that the TSA searches are a Constitutional violation of the fourth amendment is so specious as to border on frivolous.
I don't see anything coercive about these searches. They are no more coercive than metal detectors. Nobody is forcing anybody to fly. There is full consent here. End of story.
He definitely won't be succesful on the grounds of the constitution. He may be successful about having the policies rewriiten for better options after you recieve a red flag for "dignity" etc
But any fight that falsely claims that the TSA policies violate the constitution will always fail as it should.
True, I won't win the lawsuit. However, the lawsuit might draw more attention to the manner in which the TSA is interacting with the public. Right now, TSA seems to stand for Thugs Squeezing Asses.
Ventura? isn't he also one of those "truther" nutters? shows what damage steroids can do to your brain
100% correct
dont like the TSA policies thats fine but they do NOT violate the constitution
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Whether or not is his a birther-tard or a truffer-tard is irrelevant to the law suit concerning strip searches and invasive pat downs.
True, I won't win the lawsuit. However, the lawsuit might draw more attention to the manner in which the TSA is interacting with the public. Right now, TSA seems to stand for Thugs Squeezing Asses.
So if police wanted to stop you and strip search you while you were out driving or walking it would not be a violating of the constitution? I could be wrong but there is no fine print that says the 4th amendment only applies inside your home with the curtains closed and door locked.
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.
My ecounters with the TSA have been nothing but professional except for one instance. I thing this is all overblown with Vetura just wanting some plublicity. Why don't people quite whining as we all have the same equipment and just be done with it and get on the GD plane.
My ecounters with the TSA have been nothing but professional except for one instance.
Doesn't negate the negative experiences that people had.
[and all my experiences recently have been professional, etc]
And centrist, if you're gonna claim this is constitutional, please instead of effectively repeating in a circular/infinite "it is because it is" type, prove your claims.
Like Ive told you and others before, please state the admendment that TSA POLICY violates and will gladly show you why you are wrong.
What would stop them from saying when you drive or walk on sidewalks you give implied consent? You don't have to drive, you do not have a constitutional right to drive. You don't have to walk on the sidewalk you can find some other way to get to your destination.what does this have to do with TSA policy? oh thats right NOTHING LMAO
if the police stop me and want to search me I can say no and with out CONSENT or PROBABLY CAUSE they cant search me but if I do give them consent they can. when you fly you give implied consent so your example is meaningless to the debate at hand.
True to bad in reality that has NOTHING to do with flying and TSA policies LMAO
I'd like to see at least one solid attempt at an argument that there is a fourth amendment violation. If the people complain about this being unconstitutional actually learned the law and applied it to the situation they would see how cut and dry this whole thing is.
The burden is on them to put forward an argument. Even an bad argument would at least be something to discuss. But so far I haven't even seen anyone try.
My ecounters with the TSA have been nothing but professional except for one instance. I thing this is all overblown with Vetura just wanting some plublicity. Why don't people quite whining as we all have the same equipment and just be done with it and get on the GD plane.
What would stop them from saying when you drive or walk on sidewalks you give implied consent? You don't have to drive. You don't have to walk on the sidewalk.
Strip searches and invasive pat downs without reasonable cause or warrant are a violation of the 4th.
You going to an airport is not probable cause.
You do realize the constitution is a restriction on what the government can and can not do?
I'd like to see at least one solid attempt at an argument that there is a fourth amendment violation. If the people complain about this being unconstitutional actually learned the law and applied it to the situation they would see how cut and dry this whole thing is.
The burden is on them to put forward an argument. Even an bad argument would at least be something to discuss. But so far I haven't even seen anyone try.
What would stop them from saying when you drive or walk on sidewalks you give implied consent? You don't have to drive. You don't have to walk on the sidewalk.
Strip searches and invasive pat downs without reasonable cause or warrant are a violation of the 4th.
correct, nobody said it was nor is probably cause used to search you, sorry you are misinformedYou going to an airport is not probable cause.
yes I do and you are correct to bad that is not being infringed on LMAOYou do realize the constitution is a restriction on what the government can and can not do?
thus give their consent to any search required to fly (and if they refuse they suffer no penalty beyond the fact that they don't get to fly on the privately owned airline).
i mentioned ventura's exact argument earlier, and you didn't bother to argue back against it. maybe you don't see the argument because you don't want to? i think you're better off sticking to the 'if we don't do this the terrorists win' argument.
actually these are all publicly owned airlines. the private ones generally don't put their passengers through this, mostly because they're rich enough they can afford to charter a jet for themselves. but it's pretty acceptable to have a two tier society these days. one set of rules for the elites and one for the rest of us. glad to see you support serfdom, it'll help me to understand your mindset in further discussions.
actually these are all publicly owned airlines. the private ones generally don't put their passengers through this, mostly because they're rich enough they can afford to charter a jet for themselves. but it's pretty acceptable to have a two tier society these days. one set of rules for the elites and one for the rest of us. glad to see you support serfdom, it'll help me to understand your mindset in further discussions.
you mean besides common sense and the constitution? LMAO
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?