So what?
Like someone already stated, sorry I'm bad at remembering names, there is no clause - "unless there is a choice" - the govt. [who is doing this] still has to obey the law, AND the spirit of the constitution, and not piss it away for some unproven "need to," or some unfounded claim that it is needed to keep us safe.
And WHO are you to determine whether or not flying is a choice? Some people HAVE TO for work, others go away to school and need to get to and fro quickly, hell, some people live on islands [like Hawaii] - and to get off it to the mainland U.S quickly, the fastest way is by airplane.
It amazes me that some of the same people who want to get rid of TSA support nationalized healthcare (it's ok to make someone pay you because they're alive, but not ok to make someone submit to a search if they want to ride your plane?)
1. Red herring, this is about the TSA, nothing else
2. The arguments are not boiling down to, or ever do boil down to wanting no searches at all. It'd be prudent for you to read the arguments more carefully - it seems like too many people in support of the TSA's methods are incapable of doing that given how they make mistakes like yours EVEN WHEN presented with corrections, counter-arguments... which, funnily enough, you just demonstrated.
Also, the airlines want the TSA's to be there. It may be a gov't agency, but the airlines would have to have private companies do it if the gov't didn't.
1. [source?]
2. That isn't a bad thing per-se, sure prices MAY go up, but a fair price to pay for methods that are logical, less dubious [safety/health/constitutionality wise, and effective.
There has to be a limit to this - where people say "ok, this is going too far," or in response to certain absurd arguments that boil down to chicken little in support of measures like that we face now, people just come out and call those making said arguments out for making insanely idiotic, and absurd arguments not rooted in anything other than fear and hyperbole.