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.
If you admire Justice Scalia you will know that he will tell you that you have no right whatsoever to be protected from "reasonable" searches but only from "unreasonable" searches. Tell me, why is it unreasonable for me to ask that my government, as and when you choose to get on an airplane potentially with a bomb in your underpants and put me at risk of my life, to search your person especially when we have a history of people doing exactly that?
There is no place in which the federal government has broader scope under the Constitution as originally written and properly interpreted than in interstate commerce when the commerce is actual commerce between states or foreign powers, which modern commercial flight indisputably is. When our government concludes that it is "reasonable" to make these searches you had better have a very good argument why they are unreasonable. The burden is on you.
By the way, the burden is not just that you don't like it, or that you think there might be a better way, or that it's not perfect, your burden is a show that it is "unreasonable." That is, that there is no reasonable relationship to a legitimate legislative or regulatory end, such as saving lives or billions of dollars. Of course, the fact that you can avoid the search simply by not flying makes your burden even more difficult. It should be unnecessary to say that the events of 9/11 make your burden very difficult in the extreme.
Have at it
