"Correctness" is itself a matter of interpretation. And it's a matter of degree, to boot. If we could all look at some action and instantly and unanimously agree upon whether it was consistent with the law, or look at some law and instantly and unanimously agree upon whether it was consistent with the Constitution, we wouldn't need courts in the first place. This isn't mathematics, you know, where we can logically prove that one particular answer is correct, and thereby exclude all other answers ;)
So now you're making it clear that it's not a question of "interpretation" at all, but a question of whether to violate the Constitution. After all, if you speak of a "limited exception", then you're acknowledging that there's something to be excepted from. Seems you've answered the question I had for you earlier.
I say that this is an exception under the 4'th Amendment, exactly as the 4'th Amendment says there are exceptions - it only protects you from "unreasonable" searches, not all searches. Given the conflicting rights in play, I do not find this to be "unreasonable".
"Let justice be done, though the heavens fall". Speaking more generally, what do you plan to do when my exercise of my rights interferes with your exercise of your rights? How will you arbitrate when rights conflict?
But, of course, you've already done that here, haven't you? You've decided that your 4'th Amendment right to be free from some search is more important than someone else's right to live, that your inconvenience is more important than theirs. Why is that? Why does your Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches outweigh someone else's fundamental right to live?
What is the practical difference between a free-market system and a centrally commanded system of airline security, in terms of the safety it would provide?
So your argument for change is "why not?" Do we seek change for change's sake now?
So is the difference enough to warrant a cafeteria approach to the Constitution?
Sometimes rights conflict. When they do, we must balance competing interests as best we can. If recognizing that your rights aren't absolute, and that some rights are more fundamental than others, is what passes for a "cafeteria approach" these days, so be it.
I didn't say we could determine the answer instantly, but we can most certainly determine it logically. The courts have certainly made things more difficult by inventing new meanings for various provisions in the Constitution, thereby reinforcing the notion that only they know how to divine its "true meaning", but the Constitution was written with the intention that ordinary people would be able to know what it says. Granted, "ordinary people" were considerably more literate back then, but it's still possible today for people who have an interest in the subject to understand it themselves.
I say that this is an exception under the 4'th Amendment, exactly as the 4'th Amendment says there are exceptions - it only protects you from "unreasonable" searches, not all searches.
The word "reasonable" can have absolutely no meaning in any legal sense, if there's no context to go along with it. Otherwise, we could just replace the entire Bill of Rights with "Just don't do anything unreasonable, OK?" In order for it to mean anything, it has to mean "reasonably tailored towards the attainment of a particular goal." The second half of the 4th amendment gives us an unmistakable clue as to what that goal is: investigation of a particular crime, where there's proper grounds for suspicion. You can argue all day whether a particular action is "reasonable" in some abstract sense, but if it's not reasonable within the context provided by the 4th amendment, then it's not reasonable within the meaning of the 4th amendment.
So your argument for change is "why not?" Do we seek change for change's sake now?
My argument for change is that the current policy looks very much like it conflicts with the Constitution, and that it sets (or rather perpetuates) a dangerous precedent. What exactly is your argument for "interpreting" the Constitution to allow the government to continue engaging in an activity which in all likelihood creates no measurable improvement in airline safety?