<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by richard:
I'm pointing out how it can be done. Of course we need security at airports. Conversely, we need our hard-won hard-fought constitutional rights.
The way to have both is the "no incrimination" policy at the checkpoints. Then I would have no problem with the implied consent doctrine.</font>
How many times does it have to be repated that the "rights" you claim to have exists only in your imagination?
I can sit here and say that I have the constitutional right to live in the Lincoln bedroom rent-free for as long as I want, even if the president doesn't invite me. It'd have a little more validity than your claim of a constitutional right against being searched at a security checkpoint, because at least my off-the-wall claim hasn't been tested in federal court and found to be complete b*s.
Your claim of a "right" based on the 4th amendment is based on the gross misinterpretatin of "unreasonable". Since Congress and the courts have repeated found searching all passengers about to board a common carrier airline to be reasonable, your objections is the equivalent of a teenager complaining to the parent that a midnight curfew is "unreasonable". Said petulant offspring has no logic or justification other than his strongly held opinion, and neither does your line of argument, richard.
You believe the search to be unreasonable, and thus the entire federal gov't must be in violation of the constitution while your interpretation is the "right" one.
I'm afraid only a small minority would agree with you, and that's not all that impressive given a small minority of people also believe in things like flat earth.