Sorry, but the arguments are stupid. No, they are not saying that. They are saying that you cannot enter a privately owned jetliner unless they have a reasonable idea of who you are, so that they can check to see if you are on a terrorist check list.As a fellow passenger, I think that this privately owned company has a responsibility to provide a reasonable amount of security for me. And I am sure that their insurrance carrier feel the same way.
Just as long as the "privately owned jetliner" personnel are doing the asking as their "privately owned" policy and I have no problem.
Amendment IV says our government, meaning TSA, has to have a warrant and probable cause, detaling exactly what is going to be searched for and seized.
Unfortunatley, too many citizens and judges read Amendment IV as if our government can conduct "reasonable" search and seizures without a warrant.
Well, who defines "reasonable." In each instance, do we have to go through the long and ardulous procedure of trying to be heard by the Supreme Court and get permission for our right? Talk about a proactive judiciary.
I propose an amending of the wording of Amendment IX, so that we can return to the original intent.
That wording change would be as follows:
"Because the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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."