Originally Posted by
InkUnderNails
The debate is about the administrative search. The administrative search is the foundation of the existence of the TSA. This discussion is entirely appropriate in the context.
You are correct that we can not do anything about it, but we can discuss it.
Our opinions are not meaningless. Our political class want us to believe that they are. It is our collective opinions that move policy. We discuss so that one by one there are enough people in agreement with enough emotion and drive to make the political class move the ship. It is a slow and often frustrating process.
So, what is the law? You say it is no longer The Constitution, that judges and legislators have determined that the clear words of the constitution do not mean what they say and that they have substituted the words of their rulings for the clear meaning. I understand that. That is your opinion. Mine is that until the clear words of The Constitution are changed, it says what it says.
Strict adherence to The Constitution is hard. It means that our federal government is highly restrained in what they can do. The ruling political class does not like restraint and has moved in ways to remove it. A significant amount of power was left to the states and that has been taken by the federal system.
It is said that we live under the "Rule of Law." That law is The Constitution. Any action changing or modifying its clear wording without amendment is the rule of the men doing the modifying and not the rule of established law. The rule of men means that the foundational law can move to their hearts content, whether by judicial decree or legislation.
As the TSA exists due to a microscopic part of the rule of men to which we currently abide (as we must under the threat of punishment of imprisonment or death, the government has that power), then it is entirely appropriate for discussion and not at all meaningless.
In fact, the usurpation of power beyond the enumerated powers is quite meaningful.
We will disagree. We have often. I know where you stand and you know where I stand. Let's just leave it at that.
OK, let's leave it at that. This strict constructionism vs. judicial activism debate belongs in OMNI.