- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The fact you use your own transportation or someone else's is irrelevant,especially when the government is mandating that you be subjected to strip searches and invasive pat downs in order to travel on privately owned air plane using public airspace. A airline is just a giant bus and cab service. The police can not say in order to use a privately owned bus,cab or train you must let us a government agency strip search and do an invasive pat down and the owners of that cab,bus or train have no say in it.
Again just like you do not have to use a plane and do not have a right to fly, you do not have to drive and you do not have a right to road travel.
Again I have no problem with people not like the TSA policies or forcing the TSA to have a zero tolerence for workers who dont follow those policies or people that want the TSA policies change. thats fine and dandy with me. I may even agree.
My only issue is with people that cry about it and say it violates the constitution when the fact remains it does not. People that compare it to rape and assult and molestation when the fact remains it is not.
Hate, fight it, protest it etc etc thats all good by me, bring up that it violates the constitution and you look like a fool, not saying YOU did just making a general statement
Then we are clearly in agreement. The TSA searches and patdowns, while clearly invasive (in my opinion, overly so) are simply not unconstitutional. Some searches may fall within the parameters of violating sexual assault laws... but the constitution? No. :mrgreen:
LOL funny but "technically" it doesnt violate those either since the same premise applies, consent.
What I find funny is what about the TSA agent that has to look at scans and feel up the 400lb boy/girl who hasnt showered in a week.???? that must be so fun.
A airline is just a giant bus and cab service. The police can not say in order to use a privately owned bus,cab or train you must let us a government agency strip search and do an invasive pat down and the owners of that cab,bus or train have no say in it.
That's a great analogy. But you reach the wrong conclusion. If the government wanted to institute scans before getting on a bus or a cab, that wouldn't be a constitutional violation either.
The government can even perform a mandatory search when you are using your own car. Don't believe me? Check your driver's license and you'll see you've already consented to a search of your bodily fluids (breathalizer test) whenever a police officer should so demand. And it's 100% Constitutional.
That's because the search is for a specific purpose, as required by the Constitution, and probable cause has been established. There is no probable cause establish when you walk up to a bus.
Again not needed if you consent.
And since when did what would be a constitutional violation suddenly become not a violation just because of consent?
And since when did what would be a constitutional violation suddenly become not a violation just because of consent?
like I said fish in a barrel
I really wish it wasn't like this. Seems like people have such a hard time wrapping their minds around what exactly the fourth amendment protects.
I really wish it wasn't like this. Seems like people have such a hard time wrapping their minds around what exactly the fourth amendment protects.
I agree, its because for many its a VERY emotional issue and that emotion gets mixed in with their logic.
I do agree with them that it IS emotional though and I do think the Policy MIGHT go to far, it is prone to abuse with out proper training/regulation/auditing and its real effectiveness CAN be debated. But again with all that said it does NOT violate the constitution and for whatever reason they (well like 2-3 people) dont get it. They think since I say FACTS that Im 100% for the policy, im not, I just have a clear understanding of what it is and it isnt.
bless us with your superior understanding and tell us what court ruling says that being a client of an airport is the same as giving consent, just so we can see how twisted this **** is.
nothing twisted about it LMAO nor do I need a court ruling on it...
Uh... yeah, you do. "common sense" and what the law states/allowes/doesn't allow are not mutually inclusive after all.
Still waiting for you to man up and let me know what amendment is being violated? you still havent but its because you cant because there isnt one
Precisely. I think if the people claiming that there is a Constitutional violation make a serious attempt to articulate what that violation is, then they will inevitably see there is no such violation at all.
As a libertarian I feel that these scans go beyond the minimal government intrusion that I would personally support, but what I personally support is not the issue. The law is the law. Personal moral standards are not the same as legal standards.
I see the phenomenon crop up all the time though. People will pick a side for personal reasons and then look desperately for any legal argument in favor of it, even if the legal argument is entirely frivolous, such as is the case here. What these folks should really be doing is advocating for a change in the law, rather than contorting the law on the books to suit their personal tastes.
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?