• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ventura sues over body scans, pat-downs

You may notice that nothing I have written is in support of any of this, merely a statement of fact that there is no Constitutional violation.

In fact I do not like these regulations. But I am capable of separating my emotional reaction from a rational understanding of the law of the United States Constitution. It is not an opinion question; the law is the law. And the law says there is no violation of the fourth amendment.

BINGO!

more common sense
 
Public roads and sidewalks are public,

Private companies do not own airspace.
United States Code: Title 49,40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace | LII / Legal Information Institute
a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.



you have a right to walk along a public sidewalk without being subjected to a search. That is not true about private airlines.

The TSA is a government agency, not a private company. Telling the airlines to do strip searches and invasive pat downs for them is still a violation against against the 4th amendment.

You do not have a right to fly.

You do not have a right to drive.

Thus, your analogy is a failure. A better analogy to the TSA matter would be a privately owned roads or privately owned sidewalks that required a search before you could use it.

You do know that TSA is not a privately own company nor are the skies privately owned?



Right, and the government isn't overstepping any boundaries here. The government has regulated airline policy, and private airlines have implemented the TSA policy. The passenger does not have the right to fly, and thus give their consent to any search required to fly (and if they refuse they suffer no penalty beyond the fact that they don't get to fly on the privately owned airline).

Is there anything else I can clear up for you?


Again the constitution is a restriction on what the government can and can not do. TSA is a government agency.
 
I dont think the Constitution said anything or implied anything on sidewalks. :unsure13:

who said they did? Im merely stating that there is no implied consent there, its the free world and you aren't partaking in a service so requires a search.

So on a sidewalk FORCING search on you would violate the constitution

totally different from the airport
 
wow this is silly on so many levels LMAO

Private companies do not own airspace.
United States Code: Title 49,40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace | LII / Legal Information Institute
a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.

Thieu plane their service their rules end of discussion dont like it dont fly





The TSA is a government agency, not a private company. Telling the airlines to do strip searches and invasive pat downs for them is still a violation against against the 4th amendment.

Wrong again since there is consent from the passengers
the airlines maybe able to complain that the government is doing something wrong against them but it wont be violation of the 4th LMAO



You do not have a right to drive.
true to bad you drive your own vehicle and it is not a service you are partaking in lol



You do know that TSA is not a privately own company nor are the skies privately owned?

irrelevant






Again the constitution is a restriction on what the government can and can not do. TSA is a government agency.
again irrelevant since there is consent
 
Do you even know what a publicly traded company is?

Indeed, and I think the distinction you're alluding to is between publicly traded corporations and closely-held corporations.

We must be careful with our terminology, mustn't we?
 
It blows my mind how common sense can escape some people when emotions run to deep and make them blind to reality.

Listen
you can HATE the TSA
THINK the TSA goes to far
THINK the policies arent effective
FEEL uncomfortable about them
PROTEST against them
TRY and change them
PETITION to change them
VOTE to change them

and thats fine and I agree with some of that but the TSA policies do NOT violate the constitution, there is no FORCE
 
Yeah, Centrist, because you say so there is no argument that is a violation... just after I specifically asked you to avoid this perpetuating stalemate inducing **** and put forth a real argument. Guy, I'm aiming that at you since you tried to shift the goalposts from my challenging you to you challenging me without attempting to counter with argument. >_<

Alright, you want an argument? How about the fact that cops have come out to say they would be investigated, fired, maybe arrested if they did what the TSA was doing with regards to the patdowns? How about that these federal agents can digitally strip search when real cops can't physically strip search us under most circumstances [not even in a courthouse]?


...and thats fine and I agree with some of that but the TSA policies do NOT violate the constitution, there is no FORCE

And again, PROVE IT.

Don't just say "it isn't" over and over
Don't shift the goal posts, dodge the question

Just try to prove your point and make an argument that is worth responding to.
 
Last edited:
Alright, you want an argument?

Yes, please!

How about the fact that cops have come out to say they would be investigated, fired, maybe arrested if they did what the TSA was doing with regards to the patdowns? How about that these federal agents can digitally strip search when real cops can't physically strip search us under most circumstances [not even in a courthouse]?

Uh... still waiting on that argument...
 
wow this is silly on so many levels LMAO



Thieu plane their service their rules end of discussion dont like it dont fly

What is silly is the fact you think this is some how different than the police randomly pulling cars over and strip searching people.




Wrong again since there is consent from the passengers
the airlines maybe able to complain that the government is doing something wrong against them but it wont be violation of the 4th LMAO

A government agency strip searching you and doing invasive pat downs regardless if you walk,drive or fly is a violation of the 4th amendment. The government can not violate the 4th amendment






true to bad you drive your own vehicle and it is not a service you are partaking in lol

So if you take a train,cab, bus or a rental vehicle you should be subjected to strip searches and invasive pat downs by the government?



irrelevant







again irrelevant since there is consent
Forcing you to submit to a strip search in order to use tax payer owned air space is just as much a violation of forcing you to submit to strip searches to use the road.
 
And again, PROVE IT.

Don't just say "it isn't" over and over
Don't shift the goal posts, dodge the question

Just try to prove your point and make an argument that is worth responding to.

He's made his argument successfuly already:
if the police stop me and want to search me I can say no and with out CONSENT or PROBABLY CAUSE they cant search me but if I do give them consent they can

when you fly you give implied consent so your example is meaningless to the debate at hand.

easy you are NOT partaking in a service in which you imply consent, like I said common sense

anyway the airplane is just like any service.

I can open a club tomorrow and have TSA policies for you to gain entrance, no search no entry/service.

where your rights are, is the right to CHOOSE not to go to my club, just like you can CHOOSE not to fly
 
It blows my mind how common sense can escape some people when emotions run to deep and make them blind to reality.

Listen
you can HATE the TSA
THINK the TSA goes to far
THINK the policies arent effective
FEEL uncomfortable about them
PROTEST against them
TRY and change them
PETITION to change them
VOTE to change them

and thats fine and I agree with some of that but the TSA policies do NOT violate the constitution, there is no FORCE

By that argument since you do not have a right to drive the police can pull over people and strip searching them and doing invasive pat downs as long as they say that by driving you give implied consent since you do not have to drive and therefore no force.
 
What is silly is the fact you think this is some how different than the police randomly pulling cars over and strip searching people.

thats because it absolutley IS 100% different LMAO common sense and reality make it that way sorry you are misinformed and cant see the obvious






A government agency strip searching you and doing invasive pat downs regardless if you walk,drive or fly is a violation of the 4th amendment. The government can not violate the 4th amendment
100% wrong when there is CONSENT and not force








So if you take a train,cab, bus or a rental vehicle you should be subjected to strip searches and invasive pat downs by the government?

"should be" who said that, that is a entirely DIFFERENT argument LMAO

now COULD you be? if its a service you could be, yes and it would NOT violate the constitution because there is no force, STOP go back and read the bolded part again lol

where your rights kick in is the choose not to train, cab, bus or rent




Forcing you to submit to a strip search in order to use tax payer owned air space is just as much a violation of forcing you to submit to strip searches to use the road.

this is where you get in to trouble and obviously dont understand reality there is no FORCE with the TSA and that is a FACT, how dont you see that common sense
LMAO
 
By that argument since you do not have a right to drive the police can pull over people and strip searching them and doing invasive pat downs as long as they say that by driving you give implied consent since you do not have to drive and therefore no force.

actually NO what you are saying is NOT my argument by any wild stretch of the imagination LMAO are you just messing with me and making this stuff up as you go or do you actually belive this illogical stuff you are typing

your example is NOTHING like what is being debated LMAO

WOW:roll:
 
thats because it absolutley IS 100% different LMAO common sense and reality make it that way sorry you are misinformed and cant see the obvious


How is a government agency strip searching you for air travel any different than the government strip searching for road travel? There is no difference. The government can not violate the 4th amendment just because you choose to travel by road or air.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, Centrist, because you say so there is no argument that is a violation... just after I specifically asked you to avoid this perpetuating stalemate inducing **** and put forth a real argument. Guy, I'm aiming that at you since you tried to shift the goalposts from my challenging you to you challenging me without attempting to counter with argument. >_<

Alright, you want an argument? How about the fact that cops have come out to say they would be investigated, fired, maybe arrested if they did what the TSA was doing with regards to the patdowns? How about that these federal agents can digitally strip search when real cops can't physically strip search us under most circumstances [not even in a courthouse]?




And again, PROVE IT.

Don't just say "it isn't" over and over
Don't shift the goal posts, dodge the question

Just try to prove your point and make an argument that is worth responding to.

LMAO are you this void of reality, there is no violation
to violate the 4th you would need to be FORCED into search and seizure without probably cause, that does NOT happen, you consent to the search

so there is you prove - VIOLA

LMAO

so again now that i proved it please tell me where the violation is and ill explain why you are wrong, it will be like shooting fish in a barrel, while were at it would you like proof of 2 + 2 = 4
 
actually NO what you are saying is NOT my argument by any wild stretch of the imagination LMAO are you just messing with me and making this stuff up as you go or do you actually belive this illogical stuff you are typing

your example is NOTHING like what is being debated LMAO

WOW:roll:

What can be applied to airline travel can be applied to road travel,especially if you are going to use the BS line that you give implied consent and that you do not have to use that particular mode of transportation.
 
How is a government agency strip searching you for air travel any different than the government strip searching for road travel? There is no difference. So The government can not violate the 4th amendment just because you choose to travel by road or air.

LMAO are yyou serious?
1 road travel is not pertaking in a service, you are driving your vehical on public roads
2 with airtravel when you are partaking in said service you consent

like i said 100% totally different, you driving your car in public is absolutly postively diffent and common sense.
James Im not being disrespectful im honestly curious because of your inablity to see the obvious, are you still in high school or younger?
 
What can be applied to airline travel can be applied to road travel,especially if you are going to use the BS line that you give implied consent and that you do not have to use that particular mode of transportation.

nope, not if its your vehical and you are not partaking in any service LMAO

its not BS at all, your emotion, lack of understanding the constitution and or reality make you think that but you are wrong
 
I found a great article with some experts who might convince the hysterics better than I can:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/1117/Are-TSA-pat-downs-and-full-body-scans-unconstitutional

“Are the conditions that you’re consenting to so draconian and so unreasonable that there’s a Fourth Amendment problem?” asks William Schroeder, a professor of law at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. “I don’t think that argument is going to carry the day, given that people have hidden bombs on their bodies in ways that cannot be found through less invasive searches.”

'You don't have to fly'

At the heart of the issue is consent, says Professor Schroeder. Have people consented to this search, simply by buying a ticket? "I certainly understand why people are not altogether pleased about it,” says Schroeder, but “you’ve consented. You don’t have to fly – that’s your choice.”

Read the whole thing and notice how even the ACLU advocate, also a law professor, never says that the searches violate the Constitution. Seems like nobody who is actually familiar with the law is wiling to make such an argument. That should tell you something.
 
Last edited:
LMAO are yyou serious?
1 road travel is not pertaking in a service, you are driving your vehical on public roads
2 with airtravel when you are partaking in said service you consent

like i said 100% totally different, you driving your car in public is absolutly postively diffent and common sense.
James Im not being disrespectful im honestly curious because of your inablity to see the obvious, are you still in high school or younger?

The fact you use your own transportation or someone else's is irrelevant,especially when the government is mandating that you be subjected to strip searches and invasive pat downs in order to travel on privately owned air plane using public airspace. A airline is just a giant bus and cab service. The police can not say in order to use a privately owned bus,cab or train you must let us a government agency strip search and do an invasive pat down and the owners of that cab,bus or train have no say in it.
 
nope, not if its your vehical and you are not partaking in any service LMAO

its not BS at all, your emotion, lack of understanding the constitution and or reality make you think that but you are wrong

Again just like you do not have to use a plane and do not have a right to fly, you do not have to drive and you do not have a right to road travel.
 
Back
Top Bottom