The fourth amendment applies to the government, not only police.
The fourth amendment did not apply to screening performed by the airlines or contractors hired by the airlines.
TSA union: Officers quitting over shutdown, posing threat to passenger safety
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
The fourth amendment applies to the government, not only police.
The fourth amendment did not apply to screening performed by the airlines or contractors hired by the airlines.
This_person
Well-Known Member
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
We, the people, have the right to EVERYTHING that we did not specifically give authority to the government to cover for us.
The constitution limits government, not we, the people.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I take issue with those as well.
This_person
Well-Known Member
If airlines were given the right to control their own policies and my contract with that carrier were to allow them to conduct the search, I would be fine with that.
This would be like chartering a plane. Private air charter does not require TSA screening, so why does large-scale commercial travel?
How many people do you think have 3-6 months saved up?
That's a fine goal, but unfortunately people are having issues doing that. Could be poor habits, outrageous medical costs, college tuition...etc:
http://press.careerbuilder.com/2017...Workers-According-to-New-CareerBuilder-Survey
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Not enough, for sure.
Hell, there's folks reaching retirement age with no savings and no retirement.
TCROW
Well-Known Member
We have freedom of movement and your airline ticket is a contract between you and the private carrier. The mode of transport shouldn’t matter.
TCROW
Well-Known Member
The way I often think of this is that air carriers stand to lose the most when it comes to airline security. The reputational loss, financial loss, etc. So to me it follows that they and they alone ought to be responsible for configuring security the way they see fit to meet their operational standards when it comes to security for their assets and customers.
In your scenario, your consent to a search is voluntary. If you couldn’t abide that, then at your option, you can enter into a contract with a carrier that eschews pat downs and security checks altogether. It’s voluntary and a mutually beneficial transaction. Win/win.
Lurk
Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
Yer right. And I'm personally getting pi$$ed off about all those airplanes falling out of the sky around my house because TSA's failure to find firearms in baggage is allowing an outbreak of skyjackings.
This_person
Well-Known Member
have you bothered to read the contract you sign when you purchase an airline ticket?
You agree to not just the airlines rules and regulation, but also to the security measures.
I would suggest the Federal Governent gets its the power to regulate air traffic under the authority to regulate interstate commerce, a power granted under the constitution.
That gives them the power to dictate rules to keep interstate commerce / travel, safe and flowing.
Also as an executive agency they are enforcing rules / laws, that are derived from international treaties that govern travel and commerce.
If you want to debate the merits of the current screening process you won't get an arguement from me.
The Isrealis have been critical of our methods. Their airport security and screening process is apparently not as "invasive" but much better at finding potential threats and quickly isolating the threat.
TSA agents are not empowered to think, trust me on that. Supervisors (floor) have very limited authority to think as well. The are paid a low wage, expected to quickly perform their tasks and deal with some dumb ass people.
mAlice
professional daydreamer
This. Like driving. Driving and flying are a privilege. Owning a gun is a right.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I have read it. You know that's new, and based on TSA's existence (which is new). I'm not saying it's not part of the requirements, I'm saying it should not be - there's no authority for it to be.
They have the authority to regulate traffic, not search and seize without a warrant. That they inform me up front that they're going to do it does not make it acceptable.
Again, chartered flights do not require it, just commercial ones. That does not make things flow better, it slows everything down.
It's not about how well trained or smart they are, or even if the methods are effective. It's unconstitutional even if it is VERY effective.
Stopping every vehicle on the road and conducting a thorough search (we could call it "stop and frisk, the automobile version") would be very effective. The ability for each and every law enforcement official to be able to search anywhere they wanted, any time they wanted, based on nothing more than rumor and hunch, would be exceptionally effective in terms of the drug war. You know why they don't do that? It's unconstitutional!!! This is no different.
That it is horrifically ineffective is just another reason to be against it, but the main reason to be against it is that it is unconstitutional.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I know you have me on ignore, so someone please quote me:
You've never read the tenth amendment, have you?
Doesn’t have to be constitutionally acceptable. This is a contract between two entitities, you and the chosen commercial carrier. Don’t like the terms, dont agree to them and dont fly commercially, no problem.
This_person
Well-Known Member
But, to GET TO the chosen carrier, the government inserts itself and searches my stuff, my person, and seizes what it wants without a warrant. That makes it unconstitutional. That makes it wrong.
No, look at the responsibilities and agreement/contract between the airport authority/TSA/commercial carriers. Last time I flew commercial (Oct 2018) there were signs at the entrance notifying passengers about being subject to search and seizure. No one is being forced to do anything, no one is dragging you through a screening process to grab your stuff and perform cavity searches.
And if this is some more petty argument about your job requiring you to fly commercially, that is also crap. You are free to find another job and to travel by other means. Additional costs and time would be borne by you, but it is an option.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Gotcha.
So, please tell me the path to the gate where I can NOT go through that. I want to use a commercial carrier, go to their gate, and bypass this "voluntary" TSA screening; show me the path to that.
It's as "voluntary" as our "voluntary" tax system.
This_person
Well-Known Member
So, all I have to do is change jobs and/or take a boat to Hawai'i. That's what makes it "voluntary", right?
Look, you can shoot all the guns you want, but you have to submit to DNA testing on file and pay $9,000,000/round to do so. It's not a ban on weapons, it's "VOLUNTARY"!!