The 4th

[oucub23]

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.

The TSA is frequently violating this. Argue it how you will, court cases say what they will--read the text. We are also frequently exercising the use of warrantless tapping and storing of information. We're pushing to store all our text messages and emails now--w/o warrants. Are we secure in our effects now? Not hardly--the 4th is barely recognizable anymore.

[SpankyNek]

The key word here is unreasonable.

[oucub23]

The key word here is unreasonable.

And if we look at original intent, and look at the ineffectiveness of the TSA policies, we would see their methods as unreasonable. And cataloguing every text message or email sent? Unreasonable as well.

[SpankyNek]

Airline travel, IMO is a direct example of commerce between states, and therefore falls to regulation by the FED.

(BTW, I don't think TSA is an issue on private charters, only in areas where people choose to use publicly subsidized air travel)

[oucub23]

Airline travel, IMO is a direct example of commerce between states, and therefore falls to regulation by the FED.

(BTW, I don't think TSA is an issue on private charters, only in areas where people choose to use publicly subsidized air travel)

According to current interpretation, you are correct. Was that original intent though? Would the framers have felt that what is being done in airports would be acceptable? Where we've gotten lost, imo, on the Constitution is that we don't study original text now. We simply focus on things that are a result of interpretation--many times by people with agendas.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

The framers designed our system to be flexible and of common law. If they didn't think that society could change, they wouldn't have made a judicial branch. They would've explicitly said the constitution is not up for any interpretation.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[SoonerLibertarian]

The framers designed our system to be flexible and of common law. If they didn't think that society could change, they wouldn't have made a judicial branch. They would've explicitly said the constitution is not up for any interpretation.

No they did not. The people who have come after them red it as flexible so they could interpret it anyway they wanted. That's why the 9th and 10th amendments are more or less ignored.

[ocugolf]

And if we look at original intent, and look at the ineffectiveness of the TSA policies, we would see their methods as unreasonable. And cataloguing every text message or email sent? Unreasonable as well.

All you are doing is telling us what you deem unreasonable. The Supreme Court has its hands full each year by people asking the same questions as to what is a search and/or seizure. They have carved out several exceptions that has increased our understanding of what is a reasonable search. I'm sure the Court will hear cases soon on the instances you list as unreasonable. I personally don't have a problem with the TSA, but don't agree with the storage of the emails and such. To me, it comes down to where you should expect a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[oucub23]

All you are doing is telling us what you deem unreasonable. The Supreme Court has its hands full each year by people asking the same questions as to what is a search and/or seizure. They have carved out several exceptions that has increased our understanding of what is a reasonable search. I'm sure the Court will hear cases soon on the instances you list as unreasonable. I personally don't have a problem with the TSA, but don't agree with the storage of the emails and such. To me, it comes down to where you should expect a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Transposition of SCOTUS opinions would make for a boring message board. Not questioning what our government does and deems Constitutional would lead to dictatorial rule. Yes. Right now they are allowing the TSA to operate. That doesn't mean I accept the actions as Constitutional.

[Boognish]

Honestly, I really don't mind security at a public airport taking measures that some might find a bit excessive to make sure that the public is safe while traveling hundreds of miles per hour, thousands of feet above ground.

[DHF]

Honestly, I really don't mind security at a public airport taking measures that some might find a bit excessive to make sure that the public is safe while traveling hundreds of miles per hour, thousands of feet above ground.

I wouldn't have any problem with TSA if it were effective.

[oucub23]

Honestly, I really don't mind security at a public airport taking measures that some might find a bit excessive to make sure that the public is safe while traveling hundreds of miles per hour, thousands of feet above ground.

I wouldn't either, if that's what they were doing. They aren't. People have gotten through security with various devices since the TSA began protecting us. Additionally, by setting up security points how they have, we are now looking at a chance for a bomb to do a lot more damage than they could by blowing up a plane. Hijackings won't happen anymore--other passengers won't allow it.

[Boognish]

I wouldn't either, if that's what they were doing. They aren't. People have gotten through security with various devices since the TSA began protecting us. Additionally, by setting up security points how they have, we are now looking at a chance for a bomb to do a lot more damage than they could by blowing up a plane. Hijackings won't happen anymore--other passengers won't allow it.

I guess it would be a lot safer if everyone on the plane had their own gun.
Why do I get the feeling you are convinced the world is out to get you?
TSA is a security measure. Of course there will be people who figure out how to get past the security checks, just like no matter what gun controls are put into place, there will still be the occasional m**** shootings, etc. I'm sure it's not as easy as it used to be to get past a TSA checkpoint with weapons. My wife's tweezers didn't even make it through.

[ocugolf]

I wouldn't either, if that's what they were doing. They aren't. People have gotten through security with various devices since the TSA began protecting us. Additionally, by setting up security points how they have, we are now looking at a chance for a bomb to do a lot more damage than they could by blowing up a plane. Hijackings won't happen anymore--other passengers won't allow it.

Is your problem the method of the attempted security or the effectiveness of the attempted security? I fully get the effectiveness argument, but I'm more moderate about the methods. You are right that since we spend so much government dollars on TSA safety, there is no reason we shouldn't be damn good at it. Fact is that we aren't.

[oucub23]

I guess it would be a lot safer if everyone on the plane had their own gun.
Why do I get the feeling you are convinced the world is out to get you?
TSA is a security measure. Of course there will be people who figure out how to get past the security checks, just like no matter what gun controls are put into place, there will still be the occasional m**** shootings, etc. I'm sure it's not as easy as it used to be to get past a TSA checkpoint with weapons. My wife's tweezers didn't even make it through.

Consider the choke point we have created at security gates. Consider the damage that could be done there--there are far more people piled at checkpoints now than there are on most flights. By trying to protect people, we have made them more vulnerable.

I don't think everyone is out to get me. I just think it's stupid the way we are acting right now. We are simply doing things that make people think they are safer--when we really aren't.

[oucub23]

Is your problem the method of the attempted security or the effectiveness of the attempted security? I fully get the effectiveness argument, but I'm more moderate about the methods. You are right that since we spend so much government dollars on TSA safety, there is no reason we shouldn't be damn good at it. Fact is that we aren't.

Effectiveness. Well both. But that's because the methods are ineffective.

[SpankyNek]

Consider the choke point we have created at security gates. Consider the damage that could be done there--there are far more people piled at checkpoints now than there are on most flights. By trying to protect people, we have made them more vulnerable.

I don't think everyone is out to get me. I just think it's stupid the way we are acting right now. We are simply doing things that make people think they are safer--when we really aren't.

The US govt loves the illusion of safety angle:

[SpankyNek]

In the spirit of the above post, here's a cool pic of an application of DDT:

[Boognish]

Consider the choke point we have created at security gates. Consider the damage that could be done there--there are far more people piled at checkpoints now than there are on most flights. By trying to protect people, we have made them more vulnerable.

I don't think everyone is out to get me. I just think it's stupid the way we are acting right now. We are simply doing things that make people think they are safer--when we really aren't.

I see your point.
But I'd agree with college Larry Bird up there... the fact that they are there doesn't bother me, but I agree it seems they should be more effective considering their funding.
As for the numbers of people in lines at security gates, there are large numbers of people everywhere. Why not take a bomb into a football stadium, to a concert, etc. Like m**** shootings, there are opportunities for nut jobs to enact their will to the masses everywhere. At least we have security measures, even if not completely effective, to keep it from happening in the air. But, like before, I'd argue that it will never be completely fail-proof.

[OUMallen]

Of all the Fourth Amendment sins out there, I think it's crazy that people focus on the TSA so much.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

Of all the Fourth Amendment sins out there, I think it's crazy that people focus on the TSA so much.

Does it surprise you that a bunch of middle cl**** white people only feel 4th amendment discomfort when attempting to travel by air?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[OUMallen]

Does it surprise you that a bunch of middle cl**** white people only feel 4th amendment discomfort when attempting to travel by air?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Ha, good point.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

I don't even have a huge problem with air security and think that it is common in our society to temporarily surrender certain liberties for privileges.

Air travel is a perfect example. We have no right to bear arms in an airport. No one is forcing you to use the airport though. You can always drive yourself to your destination with a pistol on your hip.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[OUMallen]

I don't even have a huge problem with air security and think that it is common in our society to temporarily surrender certain liberties for privileges.

Air travel is a perfect example. We have no right to bear arms in an airport. No one is forcing you to use the airport though. You can always drive yourself to your destination with a pistol on your hip.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I agree. (And I pretty much hate the current state of the Fourth Amendment.) The TSA, like any federal gov't program, is wasteful and plenty incompetent. But I'm just not offended at the notion of being searched before getting in a pressurized metal tube with hundreds of other people, wings full of jet fuel, and being flung across the continent.

[oucub23]

Does it surprise you that a bunch of middle cl**** white people only feel 4th amendment discomfort when attempting to travel by air?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

What are you talking about?

[oucub23]

I agree. (And I pretty much hate the current state of the Fourth Amendment.) The TSA, like any federal gov't program, is wasteful and plenty incompetent. But I'm just not offended at the notion of being searched before getting in a pressurized metal tube with hundreds of other people, wings full of jet fuel, and being flung across the continent.

It doesn't bother you, even when said searches open more people up to more focused violence against much larger numbers of people? That's the idiocy of the whole thing. Whether it's a 4th violation or not is a parallel point to the truth that it creates a bigger problem than it solves. The ineptitude is what's staggering--yet as ineffective as we clearly know their measures are, we are appalled by the thought of privatizing security (which, fwiw, would completely clear up the 4th violations since it wouldn't be the gov doing the searches.)

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

What are you talking about?

What wasn't clear about what I said?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[oucub23]

What wasn't clear about what I said?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

You're talking about white people being upset about the airport, and that's the only time they're upset? And what possible relevance does race have to the issue? In a thread w/an op that talks about warrantless tapping, storing emails and texts, etc? Is anyone saying black people should still be searched? Or that it's okay to store Asian emails?

[Dexa]

What are you talking about?

My guess would be something along the lines of I doubt many middle cl**** white suburbanites have had, or know someone who's had their door kicked in, their dog killed, and their houses torn apart as part of the "war on drugs" with a no-knock breech, only to find out that there are no drugs there.. there never were drugs there.. and the intel was incorrect, or drug dealers had packages dropped off at some poor sap's porch and took it before they got home.

I could be off base though.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

I was explicitly talking about TSA. Not any of the more pressing concerns you just listed. I thought that was obvious when I said "air travel".

And yes, most white people are largely searched less by law enforcement and thus the most typical place they feel their fourth amendment rights are violated is when they choose to travel by air.

Thus how every thread on the fourth amendment devolves into a TSA discussion among people who have nothing better to do but sit around and **** on a message board.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[OUMallen]

It doesn't bother you, even when said searches open more people up to more focused violence against much larger numbers of people? That's the idiocy of the whole thing. Whether it's a 4th violation or not is a parallel point to the truth that it creates a bigger problem than it solves. The ineptitude is what's staggering--yet as ineffective as we clearly know their measures are, we are appalled by the thought of privatizing security (which, fwiw, would completely clear up the 4th violations since it wouldn't be the gov doing the searches.)

Nope, doesn't bother me. Not sure why. It just seems reasonable, given the risk.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

Unreasonable search and seizure is being strip searched for DUI, or no-knock warrants, or warrantless wire-taps. Not being scanned or patted down when choosing to fly.

[oucub23]

Unreasonable search and seizure is being strip searched for DUI, or no-knock warrants, or warrantless wire-taps. Not being scanned or patted down when choosing to fly.

Opinion is noted. Mine is different.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

Opinion is noted. Mine is different.

Would it be any different if it were a private company following government regulations? And doing the exact same thing the TSA does? I don't understand how you can complain about the TSA when flying is a privilege, not a right.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[oucub23]

Would it be any different if it were a private company following government regulations? And doing the exact same thing the TSA does? I don't understand how you can complain about the TSA when flying is a privilege, not a right.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Because I see it as unreasonable to be scanned or physically searched in theses ways to fly--especially when the measures are being bypassed. I would be as opposed to doing the same things to enter a school--even after what happened at Hook. There are ways to do this stuff effectively, but it doesn't involve the TSA tactics.

[Dexa]

Would it be any different if it were a private company following government regulations? And doing the exact same thing the TSA does? I don't understand how you can complain about the TSA when flying is a privilege, not a right.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

It it was a privilege, airline workers would be able to strike.