[Dayman]

Compelling is a matter of opinion. As stated in my 2nd post, the USSC has made some incorrect decisions in the past, many for what they viewed as compelling reasons in that particular day and age.

The greater good is served by not forfeiting your 4th amendment rights or allowing them to be trampled upon. Violating the rights of the law abiding to catch criminals is not acceptable to me, even if it means that some criminals who would have been caught are not.

[Rockingham]

The Fourth Amendment forbids "unreasonable searches and seizures." The basis for the "border exception" is that borders and ports are vulnerabilities for the country that make routine searches and seizures in their vicinity reasonable under the Fourth Amendment even without a warrant.

Since, as a matter of history and legal precedent, American law has from the beginning recognized this "border exception" to the Fourth Amendment, you cannot fairly or accurately pose as if your views are already the law. If you have a credible case to make, it must rest on some premise other than claiming that you have the law on your side. You do not.