Now the Fourth Amendment reads: So how is it the government can get away with searching my person and effects whenever I go to the courthouse or on a plane or anyplace like that? I'm not seeing an exception in the Amendment that states "except when security is concerned". And before anyone says that at the airport it's private property, aren't the screeners TSA themselves or subject to TSA oversight? So, if there is no warrant or probable cause, why should I be forced to allow a security guard to look through my belonging and search me before entering a public building or getting on a plane?
Because when the Constitution was written, nobody envisioned hundreds of people plummeting to their deaths from 35,000 feet, for example.
The key word is "unreasonable." You're protected from "unreasonable" searches and seizures. For good or bad, the Supreme Court has ruled that the searches you mentioned are reasonable, so again, for good or bad, it's clearly constitutional.
The Supreme Court says the Feds can use the Commerce Clause to do whatever they want whenever they want because everything is ultimately tied to interstate commerce, no matter how tenuously. There's alot that the Supreme Court says that is just plain wrong. Dred Scott being a fine example.
To show your rights are being violated you would need to show how a guard searching you for weapons or explosives is unreasonable.
Without a specific threat, yes. I'm not secure in my person or effects if everytime I go to the courthouse I have to walk through a metal detector and give the guard my pocketknife, not because I've done anything or because they know of a specific threat, but for "security" and "just in case".
Because in both cases, further access is conditional upon your submitting to search. If you choose not to follow the requirements for entry, they are under no obligation to allow you further access.
Sorry, but that's not how the system should work. I shouldn't be forced to demonstrate why my rights are being violated, but rather the government should be forced to demonstrate why they need to be violated in, the first place, on a case by case basis. The government has never demonstrated that it is necessary to search me just for walking into a public building, other than by claiming some nebulous notion of security. That doesn't cut it. What specific threat are they looking for and why is violating my rights the only way they can acheive their goal?
That's an unreasonable position. A public building is just that: public. I shouldn't have to submit to any conditions to go there, especially to conduct business with the state or its agents.
You don't have to submit to search. Conversely, they don't have to let you in the building or the plane.
That's entirely the point though, if they are saying it is a reasonable search then your rights are not being violated unless you can show why it is unreasonable.
You're under the false impression that you have an automatic right to enter the building. You don't. They are fully within their rights and responsibilities to set whatever security policy they see necessary.
The modern focus of the 4th Amendment is the reasonableness clause. It used to be based on the probable cause language, but no longer. What you describe is generally termed "special needs searches" and include traffic check points for DUI, border stops, school locker and bag searches, airport searches and other fun stuff. Essentially the search is reasonable if, on balance, the need (or state interest) for the search outweighs the deprivation of liberty - which in many cases is measured by who deprives you of the liberty (cops v. less authoritarian persons), how long the deprivation lasts, and the rate of intrusiveness of the search, among other factors.
As far as airplanes are concerned, they are so reasonable that I would not board an airplane if I, as well as the other passengers, were not carefully checked out ahead of time.
No kidding, the couple of times I have been at Singapore airport it seemed some people were worried by all the security guys walking about carrying big expensive looking guns, I just found it reassuring.
k. All airports require FAA approval or some shit to operate, correct? Now I imagine that their license to operate hinges on them delegating security services to the Federal Government. Now, when you, hapless Joe Fuckwit, decides to buy a ticket, you're consenting to all searches and probes the moment you follow through with boarding the plane. In short: You agreed to get hot lunched by Bobby Bureaucrat when you showed up to fly.
Maybe because it's a condition of getting on the plane? You don't HAVE to be searched, and you don't have a right to board an airplane. You can just leave.
And when I'm subpoenaed and required to show up at court? I have no choice except to: A) show up and submit to the search B) Don't show up and become a criminal. That's not exactly voluntary you know.
Eh, the airplane searches are mostly useless. The whole taking-off-your-shoes thing is ridiculous, as is the no-more-than-three-ounces-of-liquid thing. Both of these are based in sci-fi/action/adventure notions of what a terrorist might do on the big screen, not on what any terrorist can actually do in practice. The liquid restriction in particular is insane, existing only to push up prices on drinks at concession stands, bars, and restaurants past the security checkpoint. There's little evidence to suggest that the increased security checks have done anything to actually improve security, though they do run a lot more smoothly than they did at first, so at least they don't still force you to add an extra couple of hours to your flight plan. The best security measure for airplanes after 9/11 is simply the change in attitude among flight crew and customers. Flight passengers and crew simply aren't going to let terrorists take over a cockpit these days, not to mention that governments would shoot the plane down first and ask questions later if a hijacked jumbo jet with a lot of fuel left got anywhere near an urban area or a possible target.
I wonder if JCD is gonna comment on the reasonable and unreasonable searches. He seems to be ignoring that point.
This is Wordforge aka I'mgoingtoignorethatpartofthearguementforge Members only reply to what they want and ignore the rest.
