That’s not my point; my point is that as an official of the state they are [supposedly] bound by the Fourth Amendment.
And even if they are not, as some seem to be arguing, they should be able to explain their actions.
If you answered “No reason” to the question of why you killed that guy laying dead at your feet you would, rightly, be convicted of murder.
IOW, why should we give such amazingly arbitrary power to some unelected official of the state as to give as their reason for wielding any power “no reason”?
Are you THAT much convinced of the rightness of any position of authority? If that is the case you ought to become the PR man for Congress because, man, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd and Frank sure need someone to believe in them and relay that genuine belief to others.
Sorry but you guys are missing the big point. The Constitution only applies to US citizens, to protect our rights.
This is of course what Eric Holder was trying to do with the terrorist trials, apply Constitutional protections to foreigners which is very wrong.
The border people are there to protect out borders and to control who comes in. I would expect the Canadians to do the same for their border. They had every right to ask where he was going and see how he answered.