Oddly enough, the left says exactly the same thing, just before arriving at their preferred interpretation.
But that's neither here nor there, really. The key question is one of balancing competing interests. Why does your presumed 4'th Amendment right outweigh someone else's right to live?
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?
How about the fact that your assertion of "no measurable improvement" is simply false? In 1961, before FAA-mandated universal passenger screening, there were four cases of hijackings on flights from US airports. From 1992-2000, after the FAA mandate in 1973, there were zero.
Why does your asserted right to be free from this search outweigh the right to life of others?
I've never heard a leftist make that argument. Their position has consistently been that the Constitution is a living document, and that it's up to the judges alone to decide what it says according to the "needs of society" - a position that bears a striking resemblance to that being promulgated by another poster on this thread.
In 1961, before FAA-mandated universal passenger screening, there were four cases of hijackings on flights from US airports. From 1992-2000, after the FAA mandate in 1973, there were zero.
Those aren't terribly conclusive numbers. How many from '61 to '73? From '73 to '92? And if left to their own devices, what do you expect that airlines would do differently that would be detrimental to safety?