Woman arrested for refusing pat-down

Some people believe that the 4th Amendment protections are violated.

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyin...tsa-legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/

(Excerpt) U.S. vs Davis goes onto to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”........

Presently the TSA has what appears to be a “blank check” in writing out what is “no more intrusive or intensive than necessary” and what is “confined in good faith to that purpose.” With the latitude the agency has been granted … not only does a legal precedent need to be set that challenges U.S. vs Davis, but further oversight of the TSA needs to be created by the House & Senate committees responsible for overseeing and funding the agency. (End)

As to “no more intrusive or intensive than necessary” where does one draw the line after becoming aware of an underwear bomb? We should be thankful the explosive wasn't concealed in a body cavity.

Knowing how air lines are cutting costs and stepping up security I wouldn't be surprised in the future to see a notice posted, "Regarding security screenings and passenger comfort please be advised there is a $25.00 surcharge for the use of KY."
 
You voted for people that started chipping away at your rights. Too many Americans voted because they were scared. They allowed fear to control their votes and their votes got them here. Listening in on phone calls is JUST as offensive as the enhanced patdowns. They allow the government to intrude where the fourth amendment said they couldn't. This is what so many libertarians including Ron Paul warned of. But no, we were scared and gave up our rights willingly. NOW we're pissed and want them back. Power, once given is not easily gotten back.

In fact listening is more offensive as one is not aware of it. One does not have the choice not to be listened to.
 
The preamble is nothing but pretty language. It has no legal authority. It does tell us the pupose of the document, but then the articles tell us EXACTLY what they are allowed to do to live up to the preamble. You don't get to pass a law mandating everyone eat brocolli and then claim that it is consistent with promoting the general welfare. The articles are the ONLY things the government gets to do, or at least that was how it used to be.

Perhaps it's time to consider the "intent" of the framers and what they hoped to accomplish.

Let's say there was a famine and a multi-national company had stores of food in warehouses across the country but would only sell to foreigners for a high price. The government, being charged with "insuring domestic Tranquility" is faced with a domestic uprising. Would the government have the right to confiscate the food and distribute it? I say, "Yes".
 
Do you feel that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to air travellers?

"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."

Please remember that the TSA has a broad mandate which includes all modes of transport.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/index...sa-and-the-fourth-amendment-take-another-look
 
Do you feel that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to air travellers?

"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."

Please remember that the TSA has a broad mandate which includes all modes of transport.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/index...sa-and-the-fourth-amendment-take-another-look

No one is obliged to travel by air and, thus, be searched. That's the difference.

If the Police obtained a search warrant and when arriving at a home the occupant could decide whether or not to let them in there wouldn't be any need for the 4th Amendment. A search warrant removes any option. There is no legal action the home owner can take to avoid the search. Such is not the case with air travel. The person declines to board the plane and the search is called off.
 
The government has the right to place whatever restrictions are necessary on air travel just as it has the right to insist one have a driver's license. Just as it has the right to refuse dangerous goods being transported through certain tunnels. Just as it has the right to close a road if an accident occurs. Just as it has the right to close a bridge if found defective. Just as it has the right to prevent people from walking through/across military bases/property.

you are so wrong, it's unbelievable.

government has NO RIGHTS!!!! They only have certain powers, OF WHICH, they must use to protect rights, not restrict them.

it's terribly sad, the cowardice that some people have, has completely destroyed what the founders built.
 
You voted for people that started chipping away at your rights. Too many Americans voted because they were scared. They allowed fear to control their votes and their votes got them here. Listening in on phone calls is JUST as offensive as the enhanced patdowns. They allow the government to intrude where the fourth amendment said they couldn't. This is what so many libertarians including Ron Paul warned of. But no, we were scared and gave up our rights willingly. NOW we're pissed and want them back. Power, once given is not easily gotten back.
I voted for them? Who the fuck did you vote for? The FISA bill was brought about by an administration I opposed vehemently. Patriot II was so fully bi-partisan (ie: neither democrats nor republicans are going to turn down the chance to grow their power when bunches of whiny namby-pambies are demanding it) it did not matter who we voted for.

And, while accessing communications ("listening in on phone calls" is but one aspect, though emotively designed description, of what FISA actually allows) is every bit as much a violation of our Constitutional protections, I personally feel that someone feeling up my balls to make sure I am not wearing explosive undies is significantly the more offensive over someone listening to a tape of my talking shop with a gunnery sergeant in Afghanistan. I hate both, but TSA policies are, for me, the more personally offensive. They are certainly the more pervasive, since everyone who flies gets automatically slammed with these invasive procedures, whereas only people who deal with international communications need worry about communications tapping (which includes me, but I still find TSA policies and procedures more offensive.)
 
No one is obliged to travel by air and, thus, be searched. That's the difference.
Why do you keep repeating this outright, full blown, obvious LIE? Are you so ensconced in your bullshit you have to repeat obvious lies, even when they have been called more than once? There are people whose living depends on air travel. What about them? Are their rights lessened because they chose a profession that requires travel across the country?

You are such a lying hack asshole. SOME PEOPLE NEED TO TRAVEL BY AIR!!!!

You continue to ignore this basic reality, and continue with your outright LIE that air travel is 100% voluntary.

And even if one's livelihood is not involved, how many people have the ability to travel 1200 miles over a 3 day holiday weekend? So, according to your lame totalitarian bullshit theory, people must give up their constitutional rights just to be able to see their families? Since when is it OK to support a government policy in which one is forced to choose between seeing their families, or retaining their rights?

Some people are beyond the pale. Go find yourself a nice tyranny, asshole, and leave people who actually believe in real freedom alone.
 
IF you are flying then it by your choice and therefore NOT MANDATORY.

So if your boss tells you that he wants you in some city, on the other side of the country, TOMORROW; you of course would tell your boss that since flying is a choice, you're going to refuse.
 
So if your boss tells you that he wants you in some city, on the other side of the country, TOMORROW; you of course would tell your boss that since flying is a choice, you're going to refuse.

Any employee uncomfortable with flying or with security procedures in place has the right to refuse.
 
you are so wrong, it's unbelievable.

government has NO RIGHTS!!!! They only have certain powers, OF WHICH, they must use to protect rights, not restrict them.

it's terribly sad, the cowardice that some people have, has completely destroyed what the founders built.

Fine, the government has the power to close roads, tunnels, require driver's licenses and refuse people entering military property.

Happy now?

Call the people cowards but anyone who wants to board a plane with a terrorist carrying a bomb....I'm not sure which one I'd trust more. I'd probably have a better chance reasoning with the terrorist.
 
Fine, the government has the power to close roads, tunnels, require driver's licenses and refuse people entering military property.

Happy now?
no, because you are only half right. They have the power to regulate roads and refuse entry to military property. They have no power to regulate WHO gets to be on the road, other than those engaging in commerce.

Call the people cowards but anyone who wants to board a plane with a terrorist carrying a bomb....I'm not sure which one I'd trust more. I'd probably have a better chance reasoning with the terrorist.

now that's just stupid. where did reasoning with a terrorist get anyone on the planes that hit the towers? any attack since 9/11 ON THE PLANE has been stopped by the passengers, not TSA. But I realize that most of liberalism has everything to do with not trusting fellow americans over a despotic government.
 
Driving is a right? Is that in the same book as dinosaurs and people playing together?

sometimes it's a pleasure embarrassing you.

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."

Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147



"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege."

Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516



"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22?1;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163



"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579


"... For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."

State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516



"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain."

Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82

and ...

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus."

State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864


"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781

and ...

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
 
Why do you keep repeating this outright, full blown, obvious LIE? Are you so ensconced in your bullshit you have to repeat obvious lies, even when they have been called more than once? There are people whose living depends on air travel. What about them? Are their rights lessened because they chose a profession that requires travel across the country?

You are such a lying hack asshole. SOME PEOPLE NEED TO TRAVEL BY AIR!!!!

You continue to ignore this basic reality, and continue with your outright LIE that air travel is 100% voluntary.

And even if one's livelihood is not involved, how many people have the ability to travel 1200 miles over a 3 day holiday weekend? So, according to your lame totalitarian bullshit theory, people must give up their constitutional rights just to be able to see their families? Since when is it OK to support a government policy in which one is forced to choose between seeing their families, or retaining their rights?

Some people are beyond the pale. Go find yourself a nice tyranny, asshole, and leave people who actually believe in real freedom alone.

Freedom to be able to carry a bomb on an airline. Yep, that's real freedom.

You really are a space cadet.

As STY stated "most men are cursed with thinking with their groins". Apparently, some men are cursed with thinking about their groins.
 
Back
Top