• 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!

What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?


  • Total voters
    59
That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That's like saying "Oh, it's optional to drink the water that comes out of your sink. You could go down to the river that's eight or nine or a hundred miles away, and clean up some water yourself." Just because something wasn't a necessary part of life in 1789 doesn't mean it isn't now. Instant and secure communication and speedy travel, these are a part of our lives. A postal service wasn't a part of life in 1500, but the founders recognized it as a newer addition to a culture that was invaluable. Unnecessarily burdening people is not the business of our government, and unreasonable searches (which is anything based simply on suspicion, without a warrant or probable cause) is against the 4th amendment. They can't do it. Even if you ask them to. They aren't allowed. Period.

Yes, but Centrist is trying to say that this type of search falls under 'reasonable'...
He might also be trying to legitimize it by suggesting that airports are private property... which they are not. It's public property run by private business... Just like an ocean port is public property, but the boats and cruises are run privately.

There could also be the 'commerce clause' argument... that would be treating the people as cargo that must be inspected to be insured for the safety of the flight... so it's in the name of protecting interstate commerce.

All I gotta say is that it takes some manipulation of the intentions of the constitution that this be allowed. Now, a metal detector, wand, and in extra need a pat-down of the beeping area... THAT constitutes reasonable, it doesn't invade your space, it's quick, it's proven safe. To go this extra-step, which in any other cases would be reserved for people already arrested... how 'reasonable' this new procedure is WILL be challenged.

That's the only sense in which this needs to be tested.

That said, I've heard of cases back in the 40's where farmers had been forced to burn down wheat fields that were meant as chicken feed, on the basis that these farmers NOT buying wheat on the open market would inversely affect interstate commerce and so it was deemed a constitutional order.

The things you can justify with clever word play...
 
Yes, but Centrist is trying to say that this type of search falls under 'reasonable'...
He might also be trying to legitimize it by suggesting that airports are private property... which they are not. It's public property run by private business... Just like an ocean port is public property, but the boats and cruises are run privately.

There could also be the 'commerce clause' argument... that would be treating the people as cargo that must be inspected to be insured for the safety of the flight... so it's in the name of protecting interstate commerce.

All I gotta say is that it takes some manipulation of the intentions of the constitution that this be allowed. Now, a metal detector, wand, and in extra need a pat-down of the beeping area... THAT constitutes reasonable, it doesn't invade your space, it's quick, it's proven safe. To go this extra-step, which in any other cases would be reserved for people already arrested... how 'reasonable' this new procedure is WILL be challenged.

That's the only sense in which this needs to be tested.

That said, I've heard of cases back in the 40's where farmers had been forced to burn down wheat fields that were meant as chicken feed, on the basis that these farmers NOT buying wheat on the open market would inversely affect interstate commerce and so it was deemed a constitutional order.

The things you can justify with clever word play...

reasonable isnt a factor because you agree to it
"reasonable" is also a lost cause in the argument because its TOTALLY subjective

no word play here just facts
i will again repeat the facts

you are free to not LIKE it ( i dont "like" it either)
you are free to CRY about it (obviously you know this already)
you are free to SPEAK out against it
you are free to not PARTAKE in said service
you are free to PROTEST to change it
you are free to fight for different policies
and all of that is fine and dandy

you want to think its to much, over the top, overkill, non effective etc etc all that is fine, does it make you mad? thats ok too

but what it absolutely is NOT is a violation of the 4th. So when you are crying about it and want it changed, which is your right, dont bring up the 4th because then it waters down the argument with fallacies.
 
Last edited:
reasonable isnt a factor because you agree to it
"reasonable" is also a lost cause in the argument because its TOTALLY subjective

no word play here just facts
i will again repeat the facts

you are free to not LIKE it ( i dont "like" it either)
you are free to CRY about it (obviously you know this already)
you are free to SPEAK out against it
you are free to not PARTAKE in said service
you are free to PROTEST to change it
you are free to fight for different policies
and all of that is fine and dandy

you want to think its to much, over the top, overkill, non effective etc etc all that is fine, does it make you mad? thats ok too

but what it absolutely is NOT is a violation of the 4th. So when you are crying about it and want it changed, which is your right, dont bring up the 4th because then it waters down the argument with fallacies.

Ok, but hear me out for a change... I'm TRYING to agree with you here... I'm saying that this IS going to be challenged... BUT it's on the basis that 'airline searches are reasonable'

So, what do we define as 'reasonable search'?? Should you have a full body cavity search in public?? Should children? Should the elderly? I mean, who knows, maybe someone will sew a bomb into their chest... so maybe we should also have mandatory chest x-rays as well??? It's in the name of a 'reasonable' search, right??

The problem is that you can 'justify' anything as constitutional...as I was trying to explain by the forced eradication of wheat back in the 40's having been legally accepted as constitutional.

BUt, I was trying to ask you to elaborate on your point of PRECISELY how YOU justify these things within the constitution... I've listend a number of angles and you accuse me of crying... no, actually, I'm accusing you of being an &*(hole and to explain your position a little better.

If your only understanding is 'it doesn't violate the constitution' then I'll just conclude that you haven't come to that conclusion by means of any independent thought on the matter and are just repeating talking points.
 
Ok, but hear me out for a change... I'm TRYING to agree with you here... I'm saying that this IS going to be challenged... BUT it's on the basis that 'airline searches are reasonable'

So, what do we define as 'reasonable search'?? Should you have a full body cavity search in public?? Should children? Should the elderly? I mean, who knows, maybe someone will sew a bomb into their chest... so maybe we should also have mandatory chest x-rays as well??? It's in the name of a 'reasonable' search, right??

The problem is that you can 'justify' anything as constitutional...as I was trying to explain by the forced eradication of wheat back in the 40's having been legally accepted as constitutional.

BUt, I was trying to ask you to elaborate on your point of PRECISELY how YOU justify these things within the constitution... I've listend a number of angles and you accuse me of crying... no, actually, I'm accusing you of being an &*(hole and to explain your position a little better.

If your only understanding is 'it doesn't violate the constitution' then I'll just conclude that you haven't come to that conclusion by means of any independent thought on the matter and are just repeating talking points.

I have no problem with anybody "challenging" the policies
I accused people of crying because people are, you can call me what ever you want Im not trying to be one at all its just like beating my head against a brick wall, but go back through the thread and see who the "agressors" are lol

my stance is VERY clear, its not a violation because the search isnt forced and flying isnt a right, you are subjecting yourself to search and seizure by partaking in the said services. Actually its not even MY stance, it the 4ths stance.

If you want MY OPINION ask me
do I think the polices are extreme? yep
do I LIKE them? not really I think its ashame they are needed

but that has nothing to do with the 4th

TSA Policy itself is not a violation

if you want my opinion on what is "reasonable" ask me, swing your examples by me and Ill give you my OPINION on them, but it also wont have to do with the 4th nor will it matter since flying isnt a right

constitiuional justifaction is NOT needed because these searches arent forced on you so they dont need justified

just like me owning a night club and searching you before you enter, doesnt need justified, its my club and my service you want, dont like it dont come in.

now if i would just see you on the street and force you into a search then YES that violates the 4th, you choosing to enter my club and partake in my services doesnt ( and no my services are not sexuall perv!! ;) )
 
my stance is VERY clear, its not a violation because the search isnt forced and flying isnt a right, you are subjecting yourself to search and seizure by partaking in the said services. Actually its not even MY stance, it the 4ths stance.

Wait a second :
"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."[/b]

I just have to first make sure that we're talking about the same fourth.

If you want MY OPINION ask me
do I think the polices are extreme? yep
do I LIKE them? not really I think its ashame they are needed

Good, you at least have a bit of humanity left in you... but you're a fool for thinking that this type of humiliation is NEEDED.

but that has nothing to do with the 4th

TSA Policy itself is not a violation

if you want my opinion on what is "reasonable" ask me, swing your examples by me and Ill give you my OPINION on them, but it also wont have to do with the 4th nor will it matter since flying isnt a right

Flying is not the part that gets violated... it is your right to be secure in your person... part of why a peeping tom is a criminal. Also, flying does not serve as probable cause to be effectively strip searched or patted down from head to toe.

constitiuional justifaction is NOT needed because these searches arent forced on you so they dont need justified

Actually, the search IS FORCED on people. Sometimes because they are famous, or got big breasts, or people with a hip replacement that sets off the metal detectors even naked. Even if it's only 3% of people that are forced into the search, they are generally not forced into this choice for any reason that would count as 'probable cause'.

just like me owning a night club and searching you before you enter, doesnt need justified, its my club and my service you want, dont like it dont come in.

now if i would just see you on the street and force you into a search then YES that violates the 4th, you choosing to enter my club and partake in my services doesnt ( and no my services are not sexuall perv!! ;) )

The airports themselves are public property. Tax money paid for those airports... So, while your dance club is private, airports are like walking on the streets.

Yes, it's been accepted that there needs to be a level of security at airports... at first they would search based on probable cause... THEN came metal detectors designed to add a level of security that was reasonable and did not invade a persons space.

Now, they've gone beyond what is 'reasonable' searches into 'unreasonable searches' that are typically reserved for prisoners who have already been found guilty of a crime.

So I really fail to see your logic, and can't see how you're overstating the position to say that this is constitutional when it has yet to have it's constitutionality challenged.

At the very least, Chertoff should be indited for the delayed payoff he got for purchasing the machines... that payoff being to become the CEO of the company involved in these machines.
 
If you have nothing to hide you should not be afraid of the new machine. If you are afraid of someone looking at a virtual 3D version of you on a small 5x11 monitor that shows your private area's then traveling by plane is not for you. Use the alternative means known as train, bus, or car.
 
If you have nothing to hide you should not be afraid of the new machine.

Classic... the 'if you have nothing to hide' defense. There are potential hazards to these new machines that have not been adequately studied.

The precedent has been previously set that "what do you have to hide" does not construe probable cause to search.

If you are afraid of someone looking at a virtual 3D version of you on a small 5x11 monitor that shows your private area's then traveling by plane is not for you. Use the alternative means known as train, bus, or car.

What you don't get is that if there is no pushback while these machines are JUST at airports, then eventually these will be moved in such a way that you must go through in order to get on a train or bus or to go to the mall, everywhere.

Edit : On top of that the lies that have been told :
1 - they can't save the images
2 - the images are low res (they are HIGH res, and the images shown are mostly negatives)
3 - There's no radiation... then 'there's just a little radiation' (then 20-50 TIMES initial estimates)
etc
 
Last edited:
Classic... the 'if you have nothing to hide' defense. There are potential hazards to these new machines that have not been adequately studied.

The precedent has been previously set that "what do you have to hide" does not construe probable cause to search.



What you don't get is that if there is no pushback while these machines are JUST at airports, then eventually these will be moved in such a way that you must go through in order to get on a train or bus or to go to the mall, everywhere.

Edit : On top of that the lies that have been told :
1 - they can't save the images
2 - the images are low res (they are HIGH res, and the images shown are mostly negatives)
3 - There's no radiation... then 'there's just a little radiation' (then 20-50 TIMES initial estimates)
etc

Radiation is the only real problem I see especially if you travel alot. My defense is simple logic that many try to say isn't valid because they can't provide any real deterrent from the logical. Now that the technology is here and can be used if we refuse to use it and another plane is brought down killing thousands of civilians the public would blame the Airlines and the Government for not taking the needed steps to protect the American Citizens, you cant have your cake and eat it too either we put in the security measures or we dont and take a chance of people dying, its a dangerous game we play.
 
Wait a second :
"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."[/b]

I just have to first make sure that we're talking about the same fourth.


yes we are and that right is surrendered once you agree to take part in those services, they arent forceably taken away from you, just like entering my club

this isnt rocket science
it seem like you want to imply that people DONT have those rights in the 4th, of course they do but if you want to enter my club I can search you if you dont want me to don come in


Good, you at least have a bit of humanity left in you... but you're a fool for thinking that this type of humiliation is NEEDED.

this is exactly why YOU are the name you called me and why you are crying
"humanity" lmao
another appeal to emotion and nothing of substance as to way you say the policy violates the 4th which it does not LMAO

"your" opinion of my humanity is meaningless lol nor is your opinion of what humiliation is, if you feel that way dont fly, still doesnt make it against the 4th LMAO



Flying is not the part that gets violated... it is your right to be secure in your person... part of why a peeping tom is a criminal. Also, flying does not serve as probable cause to be effectively strip searched or patted down from head to toe.

again it is NOT violated because you submit to it, nobody is forcing you to fly, dont like it, dont fly, it doesnt have to be "probably" by YOUR opinion LMAO its voluntary



Actually, the search IS FORCED on people. Sometimes because they are famous, or got big breasts, or people with a hip replacement that sets off the metal detectors even naked. Even if it's only 3% of people that are forced into the search, they are generally not forced into this choice for any reason that would count as 'probable cause'.

it is not FORCED, you know its going to happen, if you dont want it to dont fly, you have a choice
also you other appeals to emotion dont work, try them on someone that cares

if somebody famous or hot or old gets treated unfairly that needs addressed but that still doesnt make the POLICIES against the 4th, it only means somebody did their job wrong or abused their power





The airports themselves are public property. Tax money paid for those airports... So, while your dance club is private, airports are like walking on the streets.

until you choose to fly, then your BS example goes out the window, whoooooops LMAO
jeez, does common sense escape you this easily, like i said early this is why I think you are young you compare apples and oranges and think they are the same

I went to the airport just last week, guess what? I never got searched, why? I was just there picking and dropping people off and to shop I wasnt partaking in the flying services that they deemed that need secured lol



Yes, it's been accepted that there needs to be a level of security at airports... at first they would search based on probable cause... THEN came metal detectors designed to add a level of security that was reasonable and did not invade a persons space.

Now, they've gone beyond what is 'reasonable' searches into 'unreasonable searches' that are typically reserved for prisoners who have already been found guilty of a crime.

again NOTHING more than your OPINION that still has no bearing because you surrend to the searches and it STILL does not violate the 4th


So I really fail to see your logic, and can't see how you're overstating the position to say that this is constitutional when it has yet to have it's constitutionality challenged.

easy because its not until its challenged and it will LOSE if its based on the 4th
Im aware you dont see the logic thats clear, its not your understanding of the 4th that gets you in to trouble its how you are wrongly dramatically attempting to apply it.

in this case the law is pretty simple, you subject yourself to the search, its voluntary

At the very least, Chertoff should be indited for the delayed payoff he got for purchasing the machines... that payoff being to become the CEO of the company involved in these machines.

ok, this has nothing to do with the 4th either

unbelievable how dramatic you are lol
like i said im fine with you not liking the policies but they dont violate the 4th

let me know when find something about the POLICIES that violate the 4th and not just hurt your feelings
 
Last edited:
yes we are and that right is surrendered once you agree to take part in those services, they arent forceably taken away from you, just like entering my club

The difference again :
- Private club = private property = private rules
- Airport = PUBLIC property = common law = constitutionally protected.

this isnt rocket science
it seem like you want to imply that people DONT have those rights in the 4th, of course they do but if you want to enter my club I can search you if you dont want me to don come in

Right, and if your 'search procedure' violates the law, then your 'security' should be arrested for it's criminality. Your willingness to put up with entry in the club does not allow security to violate the law.

"your" opinion of my humanity is meaningless lol nor is your opinion of what humiliation is, if you feel that way dont fly, still doesnt make it against the 4th LMAO

You're confusing this issue... this issue is not a 'right to fly issue' this is a 'right to be secure in your persons' issue. No warrant + no probable cause = no right to have me virtually stripped down. Now, I could even accept a quick frisk... but again, that's not what is at issue... we're talking about people reaching INTO pants, up shirts, among a laundry list of other abuses justified in the name of security.

Just because the TSA CLAIMS that they could do something does NOT make it legal or constitutional... just because the government signs their checks and gives them a little fake badge.

again it is NOT violated because you submit to it, nobody is forcing you to fly, dont like it, dont fly, it doesnt have to be "probably" by YOUR opinion LMAO its voluntary
Again IT IS violated because nobody can walk up to anybody else and force them to be photographed naked or groped... that is criminal.

Also your logic of 'choice' negating 'rights' is absolute nonsense... that's like saying you can remove your miranda rights because you chose to commit a crime... so, it's your 'choice' to go to the mall, so we should have this type of security there... it's your 'choice' to take a bus, so we should have screenings there... it's your choice to walk the street, so we should have screenings there...

DOn't you see how asinine the logic is... and then you add in LMAO LAMO LAMO and then say that OTHERS are on the offensive... give me a break buddy.

it is not FORCED, you know its going to happen, if you dont want it to dont fly, you have a choice
also you other appeals to emotion dont work, try them on someone that cares

It was the womans choice to get in Ted Bundy's car... the women should have known, so if Ted Bundy had a badge he wouldn't be a criminal.

Don't you see how twisted your logic is??

if somebody famous or hot or old gets treated unfairly that needs addressed but that still doesnt make the POLICIES against the 4th, it only means somebody did their job wrong or abused their power

That is their POLICY to abuse people... THAT IS WHY IT IS UNREASONABLE search which is WHY it will be found to be unconstitutional.

If it DOES NOT, then you'll get your way and you and everyone you know will get groped and naked scanned ALOT MORE OFTEN then just when you 'choose' to fly.

But I almost forgot, you thought that one clip where the child is screaming in her parents arms while security literally molests her... you said that there was "nothing wrong" with that... so, I'll just take into consideration what you consider freedom...

until you choose to fly, then your BS example goes out the window, whoooooops LMAO
jeez, does common sense escape you this easily, like i said early this is why I think you are young you compare apples and oranges and think they are the same

WHAT??? No seriously, I think I've been giving you too much credit LMAO... does it hurt???

What's this common sense you speak of?? That there's a difference between 'public property' and 'private property' whose distinctions seem lost on you.

I went to the airport just last week, guess what? I never got searched, why? I was just there picking and dropping people off and to shop I wasnt partaking in the flying services that they deemed that need secured lol

lol because lol thats lol not lol where LMAO the LMAO abuses lol of lMAO power lol are LAMO happening.

again NOTHING more than your OPINION that still has no bearing because you surrend to the searches and it STILL does not violate the 4th

By what merit???? Remember I'm not asking to repeat your tune 'not the 4th LAMO' ... I'm asking you to explain by what merit that either :
a - That TSA searches are 'reasonable'
b - that they are based on 'probable cause'
c - how they can circumvent the legal requirement of 'probable cause'

ALso, you do realize that this is ALSO a case where you are guilty until proven innocent. OR do you forget that in this country the presumption is of innocence?

easy because its not until its challenged and it will LOSE if its based on the 4th
Im aware you dont see the logic thats clear, its not your understanding of the 4th that gets you in to trouble its how you are wrongly dramatically attempting to apply it.

in this case the law is pretty simple, you subject yourself to the search, its voluntary

That's not valid logic... It's a non-sequitar "choose to fly != giving up rights to protect against unlawful searches"

No matter how many times you repeat yourself, it does not change the fact that these types of searches are violations of people's rights... it will be challenged... and it's actually DISHONEST OF YOU to say that it DOES NOT violate the fourth UNTIL THIS CHALLENGE goes through the courts.

ok, this has nothing to do with the 4th either

unbelievable how dramatic you are lol
like i said im fine with you not liking the policies but they dont violate the 4th

let me know when find something about the POLICIES that violate the 4th and not just hurt your feelings

LMAO!! You were so busy repeating your "rape my wife for the fourth" spiel that you don't even care about the criminality involved in how these got put into place in the first place.
 
Last edited:
My hat is off to you, Bman. I usually don't have the patience to spell this stuff out. You can't voluntarily choose to wave your rights. It just doesn't work that way. You can't volunteer to have your foot chopped off, not without a legal imperative, like a medical emergency. If you tell me "you can hack off my foot", and I do so, I've committed a crime. Just because I don't pitch a fit in the airport, or submit to this search under the threat of force (because that's what it is), doesn't mean that the TSA can commit a crime. This choice nonsense... it's gotten old. A choice made under duress is no choice at all. Choosing to fly on an airplane does not constitute probable cause, for ANYTHING.
 
The difference again :
- Private club = private property = private rules
- Airport = PUBLIC property = common law = constitutionally protected. .

Wrong
Once you choose to fly the on the plane and partake in the service is NOT public
next

Right, and if your 'search procedure' violates the law, then your 'security' should be arrested for it's criminality. Your willingness to put up with entry in the club does not allow security to violate the law. .

RIGHT
BUT
The policy does NOT violate the law
next

You're confusing this issue... this issue is not a 'right to fly issue' this is a 'right to be secure in your persons' issue. No warrant + no probable cause = no right to have me virtually stripped down. Now, I could even accept a quick frisk... but again, that's not what is at issue... we're talking about people reaching INTO pants, up shirts, among a laundry list of other abuses justified in the name of security. .

WRONG
You are confusing the issue
Fact is only in your fantasy land if flying was a right would you have a leg to stand on. Since it isn’t a right and you volunteer for it there is no violation of the 4th
Next

Just because the TSA CLAIMS that they could do something does NOT make it legal or constitutional... just because the government signs their checks and gives them a little fake badge. .

RIGHT
But who said that’s all it takes?
NOBOBDY lol
next


Again IT IS violated because nobody can walk up to anybody else and force them to be photographed naked or groped... that is criminal. .

WRONG it is NOT violated
RIGHT nobody can just walk up to you and FORCE you to be groped BUT that’s not what TSA is doing LMAO
next
Also your logic of 'choice' negating 'rights' is absolute nonsense... that's like saying you can remove your miranda rights because you chose to commit a crime.

Really are you this clueless? Miranda rights? Choosing to commit a crime? That makes no sense, no that is not “saying” the same thing
Apples and oranges




... so, it's your 'choice' to go to the mall, so we should have this type of security there... it's your 'choice' to take a bus, so we should have screenings there... it's your choice to walk the street, so we should have screenings there... .

We have been through the mall example, YES the mall could do a TSA style security if they wanted to, it also would not violate the 4th, you could just not go there

And the street thing is total nonsense just you abandoning logic again and being stupid, more apples and oranges
next

It was the womans choice to get in Ted Bundy's car... the women should have known, so if Ted Bundy had a badge he wouldn't be a criminal.

Don't you see how twisted your logic is?? .

YES
I do see how twisted YOUR logic is in that example
To bad that has NOTHING to do with TSA, more apples and oranges, you should open up a fruit market
Nor is it my logic its facts and reality
next



That is their POLICY to abuse people... THAT IS WHY IT IS UNREASONABLE search which is WHY it will be found to be unconstitutional. .

WRONG
It is not the POLICY to abuse people that’s just an out right lie by you, just you being mega dramatic again LOL

If it DOES NOT, then you'll get your way and you and everyone you know will get groped and naked scanned ALOT MORE OFTEN then just when you 'choose' to fly. .

WRONG
Its not “my” way that’s just you trying to appeal to emotion, you failed
next

But I almost forgot, you thought that one clip where the child is screaming in her parents arms while security literally molests her... you said that there was "nothing wrong" with that... so, I'll just take into consideration what you consider freedom... .
A little kid having a hissy fit over something he didn’t want to do doesn’t bother me, his parent was right there and they volunteered him for the search too

My brother used to run around the doctors office because he didn’t want to be naked and hated shots, guess we should fire all doctors they violated his 4th!!!!! Lmao see how DUMB that is



WHAT??? No seriously, I think I've been giving you too much credit LMAO... does it hurt???

What's this common sense you speak of?? That there's a difference between 'public property' and 'private property' whose distinctions seem lost on you. .

Like I said the plane and its services are NOT public, common sense seems lost on you
next

lol because lol thats lol not lol where LMAO the LMAO abuses lol of lMAO power lol are LAMO happening. .

Translation: you were proved wrong again and are trying to deflect, your example was poor and wrong and now you are trying to save face

By what merit???? Remember I'm not asking to repeat your tune 'not the 4th LAMO' ... I'm asking you to explain by what merit that either :
a - That TSA searches are 'reasonable'
b - that they are based on 'probable cause'
c - how they can circumvent the legal requirement of 'probable cause'.

A- this is subjective what I see as reasonable you may not and vice versa, it also isn’t are cll its TSAs call what keep their plane and customers safe not to mention totally moot since you submit to the search
B- see end of A, probable isn’t need since you submit
C- see end of A, they are circumventing they simply aren’t violating it because you submit

ALso, you do realize that this is ALSO a case where you are guilty until proven innocent. OR do you forget that in this country the presumption is of innocence? .

More appeal to emotion that is meaningless to partake in said service, another fail, you submit to the searches so meaningless
next


That's not valid logic... It's a non-sequitar "choose to fly != giving up rights to protect against unlawful searches"

No matter how many times you repeat yourself, it does not change the fact that these types of searches are violations of people's rights... it will be challenged... and it's actually DISHONEST OF YOU to say that it DOES NOT violate the fourth UNTIL THIS CHALLENGE goes through the courts. .

Its 100% valid and its your WRONG opinion
It is 100% FACTUAL that it does NOT violate the 4th, facts stay the same whether you like them or not, more proof is your totally inability to explain how the 4th is violated LMAO.

It might be overturned and that’s fine by me but it wil NOT be on the grounds of violating the 4th
next



LMAO!! You were so busy repeating your "rape my wife for the fourth" spiel that you don't even care about the criminality involved in how these got put into place in the first place.

More random blabber by you and off topic rants and appeal to emotions

Like I said when you find something about the policies that violate the 4th PLEASE let me know because so far you have nothing but your butt hurt feeling and the sky is falling mentality:scared:
 
Last edited:
My hat is off to you, Bman. I usually don't have the patience to spell this stuff out. You can't voluntarily choose to wave your rights. It just doesn't work that way. You can't volunteer to have your foot chopped off, not without a legal imperative, like a medical emergency. If you tell me "you can hack off my foot", and I do so, I've committed a crime. Just because I don't pitch a fit in the airport, or submit to this search under the threat of force (because that's what it is), doesn't mean that the TSA can commit a crime. This choice nonsense... it's gotten old. A choice made under duress is no choice at all. Choosing to fly on an airplane does not constitute probable cause, for ANYTHING.

only problem is im still right, there is no violation of the 4th

a person absolutly can waive rights in circumstances
a cop can walk up to you and ask to search you, you can say no, but if you say yes he gets to search you, this is common sense, and if he finds anything illegal you are beat

you can think it sucks or its wrong or sad or get angry about it and I agree in ways but it still does not violate the 4th :D

to many people letting their emotions get in the way of reality and facts
 
The fourth amendment only concerns on your person, your home, and cars and possibly even your luggage but after that not much else. And for future Reference the Government doesn't much care for our rights anymore they are more and more trying to find and usually do find loop holes in all the laws that we currently have.
 
The difference again :
- Private club = private property = private rules
- Airport = PUBLIC property = common law = constitutionally protected.

I challenge you to prove that the government owns any airport beyond that of military bases and is used by thousands of private civilians.
 
I challenge you to prove that the government owns any airport beyond that of military bases and is used by thousands of private civilians.

The government owns the TSA, which are the ones who are implementing the searches. The airports don't have a choice as to whether or not the TSA is operating in them. Therefore, it is the government who is forcing the searches. And the government is bound by the Constitution.

Unless you know of a US airport that TSA doesn't have jurisdiction in?
 
The government owns the TSA, which are the ones who are implementing the searches. The airports don't have a choice as to whether or not the TSA is operating in them. Therefore, it is the government who is forcing the searches. And the government is bound by the Constitution.

Unless you know of a US airport that TSA doesn't have jurisdiction in?

Which is all the reason to get the state out of the airports. Let the airports handle their own security
 
The government owns the TSA, which are the ones who are implementing the searches. The airports don't have a choice as to whether or not the TSA is operating in them. Therefore, it is the government who is forcing the searches. And the government is bound by the Constitution.

Unless you know of a US airport that TSA doesn't have jurisdiction in?

Bolded part: This is true but was not what my challenge was about. It was stated that the government owns airports. I wanted proof.

Also it is only a violation if you are forced to go through the security checkpoints by the government. You are not forced to go through by the government. You are quite free to take an alternative method of transportation.

Also the TSA does not have jurisdiction over any airport that does not fly across borders.
 
My dad came up with the idea that we should just stop beating around the bush with these silly pat downs and that everyone should be stripped down and gassed for the duration of the flight.
 
Bolded part: This is true but was not what my challenge was about. It was stated that the government owns airports. I wanted proof.

Also it is only a violation if you are forced to go through the security checkpoints by the government. You are not forced to go through by the government. You are quite free to take an alternative method of transportation.

Also the TSA does not have jurisdiction over any airport that does not fly across borders.

Which is like saying that as long as the police are conducting unreasonable searches, without warrants, in private businesses, then it is legal since the people can choose not to go to those businesses. Would it be constitutional for the government to force all bars to have friskers (police officers that completely frisk every patron of entering/exiting the bar) to ensure that they aren't carrying a gun or knife? It is, afterall, the person's choice to enter the bar or not.

It doesn't matter if the government's activity is taking place on private property. And, in this case, it is not like those who own that private property (the airport owners) can actually object to the government activities and/or refuse to allow the government to do their searches.

And, I did catch what your argument was, I just felt that you were arguing a technicality, since the TSA has authority over the airport, despite it being private property.
 
Which is like saying that as long as the police are conducting unreasonable searches, without warrants, in private businesses, then it is legal since the people can choose not to go to those businesses. Would it be constitutional for the government to force all bars to have friskers (police officers that completely frisk every patron of entering/exiting the bar) to ensure that they aren't carrying a gun or knife? It is, afterall, the person's choice to enter the bar or not.

The government can only apply such things to business establishment that cross borders. If a buisness establishment doesn't cross borders then it has no jurisdiction. They could by rights apply the TSA procedures to forms of mass transportation such as buses and trains.

It doesn't matter if the government's activity is taking place on private property. And, in this case, it is not like those who own that private property (the airport owners) can actually object to the government activities and/or refuse to allow the government to do their searches.

Actually they could. And frankly I am surprised that no airport hasn't yet. I would dearly love to see an airport take the government to court over the TSA. The only way that I could see them loseing is that the government controls air space and as such can control who goes up into that air space. I actually liken it to that of the whole net neutrality debate.

But point of fact is that every time an individual has brought up the constitutionality of what the TSA does in a court of law the court has always sided with the TSA. Every single time they refered to implied consent.

And, I did catch what your argument was, I just felt that you were arguing a technicality, since the TSA has authority over the airport, despite it being private property.

The TSA doesn't have authority over the airport beyond safety regulations. And lets face it...practically every aspect of any type of business is regulated for safety concerns. The government excells at regulation based on "safety".
 
They need to hurry along with sedated flying compartments 5th Element style before I'll remotely entertain the idea of stepping on a plane.
 
Back
Top Bottom