Replies

>>Where does it give the govt the power to strip search people who have not been arrested or convicted of a crime?<<

When you CHOOSE to use that mode of travel. You can drive or take a train (for the moment) and never be strip searched.

I am not defending this insane intrusion, nor the TSA (dumbest idea ever). I am just asking it be kept in its proper framework so we don’t say “my RIGHTS are being violated!” when there are no rights at issue.

I don’t think “choice” has anything to do with it. Especially when the TSA has admitted the scanners won’t work for the purpose they are using them.

Most of TSA security is ineffective though. To be fair its a very difficult task which is why it should not be relied on as the main form of security.

When you CHOOSE to use that mode of travel. You can drive or take a train (for the moment) and never be strip searched.

So the government can make laws saying if you engage in any random activity, you are waiving constitutional rights?

Is there a limit to this? Say, for example, that they make a law that says if you choose to drive a car, you are subject to search without cause. They could claim that any car is a terrorist threat and can blow up bridges/tunnels.

Would that be a constitutional law? I ask because it seems to me there are plenty of illegal search and seizure cases centered on vehicles.

My point is that there are plenty of activities I "choose" to engage in. It doesn't mean the government has the ability to legislate that I am waiving constitutional rights when I engage in them.

I've read that there is case law that says "reasonable administrative searches" in airports have been upheld. The question becomes what is reasonable. Where do we draw the line? When the devices exist, will we have standing, rapid MRIs? Furthermore, if specific people are waived from these searches, where is equal protection under the law?