Shared publicly  - 
Just minutes ago at the airport, I opted out of the full body scan, as I always do. During the full-body pat down, I remained cheerful and friendly (again, as I always do). But something happened today that I've never before experienced:

TSA agent Charles (I won't give his last name, as I don't want to cause any kind of punishment or retribution), asked me why I chose to opt out. I gave him my usual answer, that I'm one of those misty-eyed constitutionalists... One of those crazy folk who believe that if we're going to have a highly-intrusive search, it should be awkward for both of us.

"Oh, but you're thinking of those older scanners, that showed the whole naked body. These are totally different; they just show a yellow square."

This gave me pause, because my position is more nuanced: understand, I'll dance completely naked through the TSA checkpoint on a dare. I could care less about people seeing my naughty bits. It's the fact that the fourth amendment states, unequivocally:

"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."

It means that unless you're under suspicion for a specific crime, the government has no business checking through your stuff. None at all. Your business is your own. It doesn't matter if you're in line at the bank, at Taco Bell, or at the airport, the government only has the right to search you if they specifically suspect you of being involved in a crime. This was so important to the founders, they wrote it into the constitution... right alongside the right to speak your mind freely and protect your family with a weapon.

I hate the normalization of these intrusive searches. And I hate the scanners even more: They're a magic trick. A way to make something highly intrusive and unconstitutional feel completely civilized and normal. And me, refusing to play their silly game is my little quiet protest against it.

I did my best to explain my position, and was shocked by his response: with the friendliest of tones, he patiently explained to me:

"Well, if you ask me, it's about time the constitution was re-written. That was hundreds of years ago."

...There was not a hint of hostility in his voice, and not a sliver of malice. It was as obvious as pointing out that they sky is up and the ground is down. And if he is this comfortable sharing this opinion with his hand down my pants, I have no doubt it's a popular sentiment among his co-workers.
Nate Pomeroy's profile photoKenneth O'Brien's profile photoGregory McCourt's profile photoMargaret Leber's profile photo
Next thing you're going to tell me TSA is doing God's work.
Airlines have been scanning and inspecting your luggage since before 9/11. wasnt that a "violation" then? this is just another degree of the same violation.i dont know why people get so outraged. Public safety is at "risk" so they inspect(however poorly) in an attempt to keep people safe. is that not honorable? would you prefer the government did nothing to protect the public?
you should make his quote fat as well...
i bet his co-workers and many others think like that...
I have to say, I couldn't agree with you more. I think you hit the nail on head, and presented it in a better way than I ever would have been able to do.
i say, if you dont like our Constitution move to russia. it'll be better for everyone. just my opinion.
I believe it is high time the constitution get a little freshened up, just like the reconstruction of 1860s. I just fear that the wrong people will do the writing and everything will go to hell.
Yes, there's entirely too many US citizens who believe that nasty old Constitution is keeping them from getting what they want.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Thomas, one of my favorite quotes, and so very true.
I horror to think what a modern rewrite of the constitution might be like. Yay for antiquity!
The constitution is a thorn in the side of those in power. It was intended to be that way. The constitution is old meme is the first step by those in power to remove that thorn. In exchange for ratifying something new those in power will dangle all kinds of shinny "rights" in front of us while doing nothing more than making us so dependent on the government we are slaves in everything except name.
Well, that proves he is intelligent enough to see the contradiction at least (and wants to keep his job).
+Margaret Leber No, but if that is the requirements to travel by air then so be it. there are other means of transportation. I do not see it as a violation of your civil rights when you are flying on a privately owned jet. paying for a service that is not a constitutional right.
That's crazy hectic, but I don't understand how the age of the constitution is relevant nway in that context. To me that's proof that he did not think his argument through, and is therefore being force fed it from somewhere.
Wow. He actually said that. Just as matter-of-factly as if he'd been talking about changing his long-distance carrier.
"Normalization" is a particularly pernicious aspect of our current situation. I don't know what will happen in the long run because of it.
While I don't live in the US, it's chilling to hear that coming from someone in a position where it relates to the most. Ack!!
+Shawn Huff The jet is private.

The guy with his hand in Brian's pants who wants to rewrite the constitution is a government agent.
Soon to be a unionized government agent, thanks to...guess who? No, go on...guess!
The constitution was written to protect rights, and in my opinion, re-writing the constitution is in itself a violation of my right.
Ya know, I feel the same way about the Bible. Lets rewrite that while we're at it.
I'm a private pilot, and perfectly capable of running security on-board my aircraft.

I bet the airlines could do it too. They used to.

The #1 thing that could be done to improve security aboard airlines is recognizing state-issued firearms licences.
If the scan/pat-down was not done by the TSA but instead by a private company--Southwest airlines or the airport itself--would you be okay with it?
I'm so with you in your quest for freedom and against violations of the 4th amendment. This is insane. As I said on twitter, I like to think that TSA agents are just pawns in a shitty game - just doing their job. But this makes me reconsider. I understand the reason that you opt out from the body scanner, but how do you get around them looking through your bag on the belt? That's just as much of a 4th amendment violation and there's no opt out, except to not carry-on a bag (which I assume isn't an option for you).
+Margaret Leber the responsibility lies with those who made a decision in an effort to keep the united states citizens safe. Because the public outcries on why those gosh darn terrorists who ended up killing thousands of people. The government was forced to take action because of that. Nothing more. Is it the best course of action? Who knows. But it hasn't happened since so on the surface I would say yes. 
+Robert Gomez If Southwest was doing their own security, they could decide if they thought groping or irradiating their customers was necessary, and I could decide if I wanted to fly with them.
Well put together, Well stated. Thank you sir. (-;
if the TSA only scanned the people they suspected to be terrorist then they would be called racist
+Shawn Huff The government also used that as an excuse to ad surveillance, just like they will use anything else that can be named as a threat as an excuse to keep tabs on you.
In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

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.”

U.S. vs Davis was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1986 in U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 with this ruling “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”
Safe flight and remember, the Constitution actually turnes the ripe old age of 20 this May. Learning is fun.
I take the same stand as you on getting scanned. I actually have refused to fly unless there is no other option, because of all the TSA crap. If the government feels they need to "protect" me when I fry, how far away are the scanners when I walk out of my house and get in my car? Or if I decide to take a bus or a train? (I know they are actually doing, or are trying to do this now actually)... We are looked at by the TSA is criminals in our own country. Why does someone have to tell me what is and isn't safe?? I made the choice to get on the air plane or on the bus or in my car knowing that something COULD in fact happen to me. I don't need the TSA to attempt to save me.
+Brian Johnson The right to object is the freedom of speech, but where does it say anything about re-writing it in the constitution?
It is my belief that the constitution we have now will NEVER be amended again. Look at the trouble a birth certificate and same sex marriage cause. There would be out right civil war no matter what the issue is. Just my 2 cents...
+Jon kato if you think its bad now....wait until someone decides they want to blow up a mall or other public place. they will put scanners at all the entrances of these places no doubt. Look i am not saying i like it. but the alternative could be worse. mark my words, they will have surveillance similar to what the UK has now. they will get worse. there is nothing you will be able to do to stop it.
I had a similar issue traveling back home during the holidays. I was at the JetBlue terminal at JFK traveling on Christmas Eve (which is not smart to begin with). I had my first face-to-face encounter with the full-body scanner and opted-out. The TSA agent asked me to step to the side and wait for someone to come and pat me down, which I did.

But then he stopped the whole line from going through the scanner until someone came over to deal with me. This A-hole even had the audacity to tell the people behind me, "I hope you don't have to get to your plane in a hurry. We have to hold up the line because he opted out," in an effort to (I guess) shame me for my decision to exercise my right to opt-out. I kept flashing back to "Full Metal Jacket", when Gunnery Sgt. Hartman made the rest of the barracks do push-ups because Pvt. Pyle snuck out a jelly donut.

That was my one and only experience with the full-body scanners and I'd like to know if this has happened to, Brian, or anyone else who has opted-out. I couldn't help shake the feeling that the TSA would love it if we all had no option to opt-out. It would make their lives a lot easier and save them the awkwardness of having to feel up strange freedom fighters. But that's why it's so important to opt-out if you're at all uncomfortable with this device. If you don't exercise your right to opt-out, you may one day find that it no longer exists.
+Margaret Leber Exactly. But my next hypothetical question would be, if Southwest, etc. handled security, but then federal government mandated the use of scanners as a simple regulation, would that be okay?
+Shawn Huff Expecting the government to make you secure is foolhardy - people in government seek MORE power, not LESS. This is why the constitution was written - the founding fathers had foresight as well as hindsight - the british military conducted armed searches of homes in the colonies looking for contraband, weapons, tea that had not had taxes paid, etc...
In the airport, searches do not make you safe. The TSA claims it has made us safer, but that's like saying the rock outside your home has made you safe by existing there! Read Bruce Schneier sometime, and you'll understand. Governments (like large corporations) are not good at doing a single task correctly as there are always competing interests - usually money and power. In reality they have made us less safe - because we became reliant on our government to keep us safe, instead of US TAKING THE RESPONSIBILITY of INSURING OUR OWN SAFETY. In the incidents after 9/11, the only things that made airplanes safer was the lock on the cockpit door, guns in the cockpit, and passengers stopping the two idiots that tried to blow up the plane. Empower the people to take care of themselves! Our society is about individual freedom - when you take that away, we are no longer free, we are pawns of those in power.
+Shawn Huff If people are smart, they will see past it and will object to CCTV and putting little tracking chips under the skin so the government can keep tabs on where you've been, what you bought, and make sure you are doing just what they want you to.....and if it comes to that, there is always "living off the grid." Although that would be very inconvenient.
Taking the scanning out of the companies hands eliminates them from using it as a promotional four times and skip the scanner on your fifth! I could see that a s big sales promotion....
+Andrew Thompson I never said that it was not silly or naive...I said because of the public one said the general public was all that smart.
+Jon kato maybe we could move to the mountains of off the
I have never understood the problem people have with the TSA (beyond the whole 'security theater' idea). The American constitution guarantees certain rights to its citizens, but aerial transportation is not a right. No one is forcing you to fly anywhere. Drive or train if you don't like the TSA.

And the constitution allows the federal government to regulate commerce, which covers people paying money to get on airlines. The TSA is part of their regulation and safety protocols.

The federal government is also tasked with protecting its citizens. What is the problem?

They aren't stopping you on the street and checking your bags; they are checking you before you volunteer to get into a flying metal box that has been shown to easily kill 3,000 people.
We now a couple generations of young people that were never taught about the Constitution or why the Bill of Rights was (is) so important. They simply don't understand.
+Andrew Ruess Actually, if you look at their plans, that's coming. Soon they won't be stopping you, they'll just be searching you from a van. (VIPR anyone?) That metal box you speak of is already protected - by locking the cockpit door, and having a policy of not opening it. Why do they need to violate your 4th and 5th amendment rights to make you "more secure?" The constitution is supposed to limit government size, scope, and power, and was an attempt to insure the government never stepped over those bounds - now there are no bounds, as congress writes laws with complete abandon to the oath of office they took, and the president signs bills that violate his oath as well.
So, you have to wonder. Is his position just a misguided attempt to preserve the source of his livelihood, or is he really that ignorant? If it's the latter, then the future of our country seems deeply troubled.
+Andrew Ruess The only task the federal government is supposed to do is protect citizens rights - not protect citizens.
@Tom Heatherington we've had a couple presidents who seemed to enjoy pissing on the constitution, so I think there are more people that don't really see it as having any usefulness.
+Andrew Ruess I guess we have to define rights for every single thing these days...
I'm here from the Government and I'm here to help.
I hate these anti-constitution guys. There is no reason to rewrite the constitution. We have the amendment system which allows the document to evolve over time.The main body of the constitution works just as well today as it did in the 1788 when it was ratified. The problem with the scanners isn't that they show you naked, it's the radiation. The TSA agents aren't radiologist so they do not know how to properly calibrate the machines to make them safe. Also some airports have begun issuing them dosimeters. Why would they need dosimeters if the scanners are as safe as they claim they are? We should get rid of the TSA and make airlines provide their own security. The TSA is completely useless. You can't say the TSA is working just because there haven't been any terrorist attacks. Causation and correlation are not the same thing. If they really wanted air travel to be safer they'd allow passengers to be able to defend themselves.
Wow. So, he would be willing to re-write the Constitution in such a way as to give the National Government MORE POWER? Nuts!
I do not like these type of numbnuts. I have had less that cordial encounters with "cops" throughout the years. I do not tolerate them well. I'm sure they feel the same towards me. I love mutual feelings. I know where they stand. Thus when the flag goes up, I know what I have to do...
+Craig McCasland goes to show you that people are being born stupider every year. We are De-evolving.... that's why music like Justin Bieber and Niki Minaj is popular these days.
The problem is that they are looking for criminals in the manner least likely to find them. Brian Brushwood is as unlikely to smuggle in a shoe bomb as I am. Nor is someone's 5-year old daughter likely to pull out a box cutter and start cutting some throats in the name of Allah. Besides, post-911 it's all a crock because real terrorists will be working on completely different targets. They already won because our own government is screwing us over with these "security" measures that don't make us secure but do strip us of our inalienable rights.
Let's face it, canonical documents are in a constant state of being rewritten, even if it is presented as "interpretation". Your reading of the Constitution is colored by the prism of your own experiences.
I think it'd be interesting to ask that guy what he thinks this new constitution would include, though. We live in a time of very nebulous ideals; what kind of ideals does he think would be durable enough to stand the test of time like those espoused by the current Constitution?
All I can say is WTF is wrong with the world... I feel so much safer now :(
That just makes me sad.
since 9/11 they only have to say they believe a crime may have been committed. i smell burning marijuana is a favorite.
Shawn, the fact is the Constitution does say that the government shall not search & seize. The TSA is a gov't agency. So regardless of the justification, it explicitly goes against the Constitution.

Also, the argument "if you don't like it, don't fly" doesn't really work for professional travelers like +Brian Brushwood . These folks depend on air travel for their careers, so the argument sounds a lot like "if you don't like your civil liberties being abused,get a new job," when the solution is to speak up in defense of your liberties.
Well said Mr. Brushwood. I agree with your sentiment completely. I'm sure chris has no idea that rewriting the constitution means having a revolution but as I look at our current laws and practice it would appear as it has been (partially) rewritten only no one noticed. scary. can write?!?!
I totally agree.
I think the radiation from those machines has melted what little brains that TSA Agent had left.
...about not rewriting the constitution!
I too agree, but I don't boldly demonstrate as Brian does. Foreign airports might not use the same methods but similar. I fly only once or twice per year out of Narita near Tokyo. Usually I'm flying into Atlanta. Putting security aside, it takes almost an hour through customs and immigration, and their attitude seems to say "We have to be this thorough" Getting back to Japan, customs and immigration each take a few seconds
Unfortunately, there is no constitutional right to airline travel. By buying the ticket you are granting them the right to search you, make you turn of your digital toys during takeoff /landing and have you restrained and arrested if you are too big a douche in the air.
Airline travel also cancels your 2nd Amendment rights; flying is uncomfortable and often spreads disease. Until we get teleportation (which I have on good authority will be a feature in Android OS code name Zucchini) SUCK IT UP.
Constitution arguments aside, this is just a poor way to do airport security.
Very good post, wish us english folks had a constitution like you guys, it seems the majority of our laws are made up as they go along.

Recently on my first trip abroad (Las Vegas(For the magics)), i had my first full body scan and had a nice surprise when i got out the little scanning booth(?) the guard asked me to remain still and to raise my arms and then proceeded to call for assistance as the scanner had found metal of some kind unbeknownst to me within my right bicep. I was pretty freaked out i didn't move, obviously. I kept my cool as much as i could followed orders, bare in mind i was a airport virgin at 23 and got rescanned with everyone staring and i could hear the guards ask each other if they had stab vests on. I picked up on alot at that moment from the folks making comments to twitchy looking guards who were seemingly growing in numbers. NOT FUN.

At that moment when i go rescanned they in fact detected nothing and was thrown through like the obvious piece of shit i was to them.

Nothing seemed to say welcome any better i'm sure. So yeah maybe i may want them to feel some of that indignity and awkwardness next time.

Sorry about the rant, i just had to share and that is the short version.

Thank you kindly.
WTH is wrong with the world feeling we should give up our rights. So everyone can become a criminal.. Is sad now
+Chip Stone no where in the constitution is it written that traveling professionals have the right to their jobs. It's simple logic to think if that is what they choose to do then they have to abide by the rules set forth by our elected officials for public safety. No one forces anyone to have to submit to these scans. They all choose to. Like it or not. 
I notice that of all the things Mr. Brushwood boldfaced in his transcription of the Fourth Amendment, he didn't bother boldfacing the word unreasonable. If the founders had intended to speak to all searches and seizures, they could have done so, but they chose to limit the scope to unreasonable ones. It stands to reason, therefore, that reasonable searches and seizures exist, at least in the founders' minds. So: what are they? What makes a search and seizure reasonable?
+Robert Gomez I'm a do not want to get me started about Federal aviation regulations. Trust me on this.
Must be called "idiots guide" because that's who wrote it...
I don't fly often, but next time I do, I'm wearing my kilt... REGIMENTAL style. It will make the search much quicker, but much more uncomfortable for the TSA agent.
We need more people like you and if we stood shoulder to shoulder we can bring back the America we all love, democratic and free!!!
+Margaret Leber, read the amendment. According to the language, there is such a thing as a reasonable search and seizure. And courts throughout history have allowed for certain searches and seizures without probable cause and/or warrant---read about "administrative searches."

Now, the TSA is accused of abusing the doctrine of administrative searches; fair enough. But are you willing to say, for instance, that metal detectors are allowed in no government buildings? In courthouses, for instance (not for the criminals, but those in audience)? The courts never have. Should the government have any power to perform routine inspections of persons or vehicles that enter the country legally?

My objection is primarily with Mr. Brushwood's statement, "the government only has the right to search you if they specifically suspect you of being involved in a crime." That wasn't true before the recent TSA crackdown, and it isn't now.
+Robert Gomez Yes, because then I could choose a different airline or airport that was less intrusive and more respectful of my civil rights.

A few years ago I was illegally detained at Costco because I refused to let them search my wife's bag. She was in the lady's room "freshening up" and they were letting women pass through the same checkpoint with purses far, far, far bigger than my wife's bag, but because I didn't fit their profile of "someone who normally carries this size bag" they decided to search me. Because they were NOT the government and had no warrant I could call them on it, said I do NOT consent to someone searching my property, and besides it wasn't my bag anyway. They were in the middle of calling the police when my wife returned from the bathroom and gave them the permission to search her bag. I haven't shopped at Costco since.

Sure, my wife has been back a few times, and there's millions of other customers who let themselves be publicly degraded and have their rights violated that will keep them in business, but there's a half dozen brick-and-mortar stores that since have given me much better product AND service that I might have passed over before, not to mention Internet based companies that don't even have a CHANCE to invade my person or property.

When a private business that doesn't have a government sponsored or granted monopoly (see: Mercantilism) does this kind of crap, they lose customers and business and either wise up or go out of business entirely. When the government pulls this crap you either comply or pay the salary of a judge, some lawyers, and keep law enforcement employed at the expense of several years, if not decades, of your life and livelyhood.
"The actions of courts throughout history" are one of the main reasons for the Constitution. I have in fact read the 4th many times.
OK, I'm going to ask again, Margaret, but I'll give you a specific hypothetical to make it easier. Is is permissible for the government to make you walk through a metal detector before, say, going on a tour of the White House? If so, then you disagree with Mr. Brushwood's categorical claim. If not, then I suppose we'd better to agree to disagree, because we apparently have a fundamental difference in belief about what the 4th Amendment actually says.
I completely agree with your position on this Brian. I'm scared that there are a lot of dunderheads that agree with the TSA agent. I could go on about the magic trick of the dumbing down of schools over the last 40 years and lots of other conservative things that would likely cause severe angina for many of your followers, so I won't continue. I just hope others who may at first blush agree with the TSA agent, stop and think about this for a second and go do some reading of history to see why / how we got the Constitution and what makes it so novel in the entire history of civilization.
+Michael Grant You're awfully tedious, even for a mathematician.

But when "Mr. Brushwood" gets an honorifc while you condescend to call my by my first name while you "make it easier" for me, you become a tedious sexist, and you can go fuck yourself, son.

I mean "Mr. Grant".

Ah, now that's interesting. When I refer to one person in the third person by their last name, but another in the second person by their first name, it's because I'm a sexist. Can't possibly be because I never attempted to address Mr. Brushwood directly, as I did Ms. Leber, could it? Nah. I'm just a woman hater.

She caught me. The truth is I like getting a peek at the x-ray images at the airport when women walk through them. The funny thing is, if you look at her wall, she strikes me as a fellow right winger. Playing knee-jerk feminist victimhood games isn't supposed to be our style.

And yeah, it's tedious to repeatedly ask for a direct answer to a specific question. Fair cop. Though I still haven't received one. If anyone else here would like to take up the question, feel free: if is ever permissible for the government to ask you to walk through a metal detector without accusing you of a crime? I think most of us are OK with them in certain circumstances even if we don't like 'em in airports, or even if we believe (as I do) that the TSA is taking it way too far.
Thanks for opting out. I haven't had an opportunity yet. With all the flying you do, It must be a real hassle. Keep fighting the good fight.
They are talking about full body scans being mandatory in Australia with no option to opt out
Sigh. The 24 hour surveillance is coming to the USA. I am worried about the use of drones over us. I like to keep my constitutal rights more than have the illusion of being safe.
Are you people really surprised by this encounter? This is the era of sharing everything on Facespace and Mybook, no secrets anywhere. We are raising an entire generation who has little to no concept of privacy rights. And many of them are suckling the teat of government in some way or another; our rights and privacy mean nothing if it means getting more benefits and security from Uncle Sam. It's sad, but true. We're becoming a country in need of constant mollycoddling.
Excellently written. Couldn't agree anymore.
No one is forcing you to fly. You have every right to turn around and walk out. By buying the ticket you are AGREEING to be searched. Try to fly without picture I.D. sometime. You wanna fly? You have to have one.

It's a convenience, not a right, to take a plane.

I doubt you'll read this. I read your entire post, with respect and understanding of your perspective. Each point and linkage you make in each point is valid. There can be no argument. I think your interpretation is also valid as the U.S. Constitution and all applicable Amendments as of today.

But within the opinion in which you so elegantly write your statements to the TSA officer and his responses, both have already occurred and will continue to happen as the future unfolds. Technically the Constitution itself has not been rewritten, but it certainly has been upgraded since 1787. 27 times through amendments.

I would only offer to you the very argument you use to defend yourself, in which you suggest your forefathers wrote in all your rights. They didn't. Those came later in amendments though actions which occurred through many different points in history.

And without getting into a tit for tad argument and point by point debate which will do nothing to make things agreeable, all I would suggest is that if the forefathers knew what we all know, I would suggest you would have a whole new ballgame in what "rights" really means...

Just sayin...
The day that the idiots who control this country decide to rewrite the constitution in their views is the day i pack my bags. This country is screwed up enough without giving the crooks and idiots that is running the country into the ground MORE power and taking away MORE of American freedom. P.S. all of you people who just say, its a privlage not a right, you can just leave, you dont have to fly, i wanna see how you feel when you cant take any sort of mass transit (plane, bus, boat, ect) without being strip searched, or when you need to have a passport to travel outside you state and get searched every time you cross a state line. Then will see who will be crying foul about traveling. Just remember you can always walk, you don't have to drive that car or take that bus.
Actually Doug, since he is talking about the 4th amendment, one of the first 10, also known as the bill of rights, he is correct that they were written in by our founding fathers. The bill, all 10 amendments, was ratified in as a whole in 1791.
I bet the TSA agent's reaction to the Constitution came after some intense convincing by the FAA and DHS that what they were doing is not only necessary, but also noble.
+Shawn Huff "would you prefer the government did nothing to protect the public?"

If "protecting the public" means suspending my rights as an individual sentient within the borders of the United States of America, then yes ... No, /*Hell yes*/...

There are very few things worth dying for in life. Freedom is one of them.
Holland, the point is, they made changes. And it wasn't just the original writers. The second point I would make is, no, they didn't (founding fathers), write all of them, they had a lot of help, and there certainly are more than 10 as we all know. Ironically, civil rights was updated numerous times. The impacts of, I have a Dream, fundamentally changed civil rights, and were revised once more. An interesting twist (I suspect) is that I don't think the TSA officer realizes what he truly said....
Brian I am taking this and posting it on a few firearms message board giving credit to you of course. This is what so many people don't understand any more.
Amen, and again I say AMEN! Very well stated Mr. Brushwood. 
From the mailing list...

As most of you are aware, the Federal Flight Deck Officer program was initiated shortly after 9/11. The idea was to let pilots on commercial airlines operate in the capacity as federal marshals during flights should trouble arise and the pilot needed to defend the flight deck from intruders.

Today, Big Sis aka Janet Napolitano was before the House Homeland Security Committee, and representative from Michigan Cravaak gets into it with Napolitano and the FFDO program.

Cravaack Grills Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano

The issues are that the FFDO program in the new budget had been reduced by 50%. The "cost" of each flight, to the federal government, with an FFDO aboard, is quoted as $15.00. Not $15,000. Not $150,000, but $15.00.

Napolitano tap dances her way around it. Representaive Cravaak was at one point in his life, a commercial pilot and was not buying anything Napolitano was selling.

The segment runs just a hair over 5:30
+Brian Brushwood you just pointed out what is wrong with people in America and why the educational system is failing us; from several different angles. I applaud you.
Took amtrak from chicago a month ago. Other than being delayed 3 hours, it was a nice ride. They serve food and drink at high prices, but you can carry on what you want. Seats are comfy, and outlets are available for electronics. Watched streaming netflix on my phone and browsed the web. I never got searched, but only had one carry on backpack.
The very second we stop treating the Constitution as the sacred document that it is, that's when we lose everything we know and love about this country.
So sad. Unfortunately there is at least one Supreme Court Justice (Ginsberg) that also shares his sentiment. What concerns me most is the complete and total lack of respect for the Constitution. What has happened to the people of this great nation. I truly fear for the freedoms of my children.
I am someone who truly believes that TSA searches are wholly unconstitutional, but with that said, people often forget how fluid the interpretations of the Constitution have been over the past 200 years.

Only 50 years ago, it was considered completely legal for these searches to take place, as long as it was not an agent of the FEDERAL government doing the search. If it was a state, county, or local agency, it was considered completely acceptable (excluding states which interpreted their individual constitutions differently of course).

The sad reality of the last decade is the pendulum has begun to swing in the other direction, and it scares the hell out of me.
Even if perspectives seem to contradict, they can all seem to be true despte the logic issue. Truth is complex.
This is the problem with most people they think the constitution gives you rights. It does not, it tells the government what you are allowing them to do.
Brian, while you may not be carrying hazardous materials through TSA security, there are many people who dislike the USA and their freedoms. The security measures put in place help to ensure a safe flight, which is what we all want, right?
I love you, Brian Brushwood. You reenforce my preconceived notions and opinions. :)
Someday your commenters will understand liberty when they have none left. They will understand security when they have none in spite of promises by the paternal state.
+Nick Minore The issue is while we may all want that as the end result, we all do not share the same vision for how to go about achieving it. Trading freedoms for security is flawed proposition.
I'm not saying that changing the unreasonable search and seizure section is a good idea because I think that privacy rights are very important but I do cringe a bit whenever I hear this common American obsession with viewing the constitution as a perfect, infallible document.
Americans used to have a constitutional right to recapture runaway slaves, for instance. Now there's a constitutional right to be free of slavery. They abolished a constitutional right and that was awesome.
I'm not saying that changing the search and seizure laws would be a good change but let that argument stand on its own without appealing to this false notion of constitutional infallibility.
+Greg McCourt Bit of a straw man there. Nobody said the Constitution was "infallible". But it is difficult to amend for good reasons. There is no part of the Constitution that should be changed casually, and there are many, many parts of the Constitution that should not ever be changed.

The United States Constitution is a covenant under which several sovereign states agreed to be bound together. The powers it grants and limitations it imposes are very carefully wrought. It is exquisitely fashioned, and much thought and deliberation and informed consent is needed before entertaining changes. It is not "perfect"; I personally would replace the Second Amendment whole-cloth with the 21st article of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth in a heartbeat. I'd also like to see the Article I, Section 8 "General Welfare" clause repaired of the damage done to it by statist judges.

That said, it's still a thing of beauty. If you want to see the same thing done badly, I refer you to the European Union.
Add a comment...