If you are only focused on the impact, I'd agree with you. If you take the perspective that they are equally unconstitutional and unlawful acts, then they are very analogous. You may not agree with the latter, but many do.

These...

In your opinion, if there is minimal harm, is whatever TSA does automatically constitutional? How about if there's a little harm, a little invasion of privacy, a search that's just a little bit unreasonable? Where's the line?

Is there any line (for you) that the government can't cross for security?

What process should be used to determine what is and isn't acceptable (however you define acceptable to be)?

I'm not talking about illegal (inconsistent with existing law), but the erosion of rights (inconsistent with the constitution)--these are different things. The constitution doesn't say you have the right to drive a car, but you sure as sh*t can't (legally) be pulled over for no other reason than being black. The reason is constitutional interpretation of the laws related to the police. These interpretations didn't happen overnight.

TSA has found the magic loophole. Don't have any laws. No laws to obey. Make it up as you go along. Keep all procedures secret. Perfect.

Seriously, what would you say to having police with no constraints other than "implement any measures necessary to keep us safe"? I'd bet a lot of black people would be getting pulled over in the name of public safety and a lot of homes would be search based on nothing but hunches. This is the situation with the TSA. Congress has completely advocated its responsibility to set the rules and TSA is running freely because of it.

Our constitutional rights include protections from the federal government for things like unreasonable searches and invasions of our privacy. TSA does both. Without legal authority, the TSA cannot just make up a requirement that citizens provide private information (no matter how trivial it may seem or how little the inconvenience) without authority to do so. In other words, some administrator cannot simply decide one day to create the state-your-name-game. If you think this is OK, what's to stop him from deciding your are required to divulge your SS#, reason for traveling, who you are meeting, etc. These are all invasions of privacy.

Without authorization, I would claim what the TSA is doing is illegal. Even with authorization, they MIGHT STILL be considered unreasonable and, therefore, Unconstitutional. Imagine TSA implemented strip-searching and cavity searches. The lack of authority would be clear. If a law was passed for these, the law SHOULD be immediately considered an unreasonable search and, therefore, unconstitutional.

"Congress has completely advocated its responsibility to set the rules and TSA is running freely because of it."


Think you are looking for the word abdicated.

And a new spell checker too. :D

The Congress of the United States is so incompetent that they can't even pass a budget as required by law.

We have little chance that this same dysfunctional group of incompetents will correct the mistake of creating TSA.

We are own our on to push back against Pistoles screeners.

Of course asking my name is not a violation of my rights. Restricting my freedom of movement (by forcing me to identify myself before I am allowed to travel between states) is a violation of the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Constitution. The case law dates back to 1823, and has been reaffirmed as recently as 1999.
No. Congress authorized and legislated slavery. Freedom from slavery is a fundamental human right.

Sometimes we get lucky and the Supreme Court is able to defend the human rights enshrined in our Constitution. Other times a war or civil disobedience is required.

MUST we tell all you unwashed masses the language in the Constitution that guarantees that motorized traffic flows smoothly? Do you know NOTHING about your country's most SACRED LAW?

The amendment authorizing you to protest says you must do it peacefully. You cannot create violence or chaos.

Are you telling me that 50 people have the right to sit down in the middle of the freeway and the government has no right to remove them?

OK, here we go.

1. When drawing lines like that, you need to use your common sense. Being asked your name is reasonable, being asked to take off your clothes isn't. The constitution is full of vague clauses like "cruel and unusual" or "necessary and proper" that require someone to draw the line somewhere, and of course there can be some disagreement. I don't know exactly where the line is, but I know for sure that being asked your name doesn't cross it.

2. Yes, of course there is. See answer to #1.

3. The same processes that are used for everything else: the process of a bill going through the Congress, the process of the executive branch issuing rules, and the process of the courts evaluating the rules for constitutionality.

I have said that saying ones name does not appear to be unreasonable. I have only said that I find no requirement for doing so. I only ask for the legally derived law or regulation that requires it. I have yet to see a citation of law or regulation that is not any more the "because we say it is, it is." That is neither law nor legal regulation.

What you say matters not a whit. What you can cite in public law and regulation does. And I will respect that. I may still fight by legal means to change it, but I will respect it.

I agree with all three.

For #1, the difference between you and I (and between all people) is where the line is. Lawmakers disagree. Courts Disagree. The point is there is a line and the government should not do unreasonable things to people that want to travel freely.

Ditto #2.

It seems like we agree on #3. TSA has to have laws like every other government. Those laws should (then) be challenged in court by those that think the government has gone too far. Airport security doesn't have a free pass from the constitution.

One more question: Since strip searching appears to be on the other side of the line for you, what would you suggest doing if TSA (w/o legal authority), decided to start strip searching people (w/o any probable cause) simply for wearing clothing that was too hard to search (e.g., a skirt) or had certain medical conditions or devices?

Precisely. I also agree that say your name is a trivial issue in terms of impact. However, the fact that some administrator made it up on a whim (w/o legal authority) and that it is completely ineffective makes it unreasonable for two reasons.

Speaking out against unreasonable acts by the government is not only allowed, it is the responsible thing to do. At the very least, this is fraud, waste, and abuse.

^^ What this exercise really demonstrates is the steady progression of TSA from an aviation security agency to a law enfrocement agency, which both Pistole and DHS are itching to accomplish. Right now, TSA clerks are just that - clerks. Pistole wants them to be full-fledged federal LEO's and until he gets that, he's devising procedures to give his clerks the aura of law enforcement authority - such as the say your name lunacy. Only an idiot (OK, there are many of those at TSA) would believe that a terrorist is so incompetent as to not learn how to say his false name when confronted by a TSA clerk.

^^ Far too many citizens are becoming sheep, ever-ready to be sheared by an increasingly oppressive government.

This important point, about waste, has gotten far too little attention in this very long discussion. All of us -- even the TSA folks who have to do it! -- seem to agree that the say-your-name game makes, at best, an infinitesimal contribution to our security. If we accept that as a fact, then why is the government using our precious and scarce tax dollars -- taken from us by force, effectively -- to pay people to do something so nonsensical? That alone should make this practice offensive and objectionable. If it were somehow free, then I might just laugh at the minor inconvenience, but it's not free. Every single TSA person who wastes a minute asking me to say my name (which I will say is "Smith," but that's another subject) is getting paid by you and me. That's a useless service that I would choose not to purchase if given the choice. It's a far cry from essential services like air-traffic control, which I gladly pay for.

Bruce

They don't care. The terminal screening manager at AUS won't even talk to peon flyers. He just orders the three-striper to do a full, retaliatory SSSS

Too bad we don't have a senior senator handing out "Golden Fleece" awards any more....

On a related topic, there was an excellent article (subscription may be required) in the WSJ yesterday about the how legal protections are being eroded at the Federal level, including weakening of mens rea.

Who the hell are you to tell me what is reasonable?