Requirement for speaking your name?
#256
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
I'm not trying to insult you. Let me re-phrase in a more polite way: "The situation in which a government agent asks you for your name at an airport, and the situation in which a government agent searches your home without a warrant, are not analogous. Most people would see a fundamental difference between the two, based on common sense and not on constitutional arguments." ?
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)?
Would it be OK if government agents came to your house after you buy a ticket online? How about instead of just asking a few questions, they come in and look around. Would that be OK to? If it only took a minute or two, there's no harm, right?
How about if you refuse to let them search your bedroom, they threaten you with arrest and fines because you refuse to complete or are interfering with their screening? What if they retaliate against you for asking questions by feeling up your wife or daughter? No harm there, right?
How about if you refuse to let them search your bedroom, they threaten you with arrest and fines because you refuse to complete or are interfering with their screening? What if they retaliate against you for asking questions by feeling up your wife or daughter? No harm there, right?
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.
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.
#259
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,174
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.
#260
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AS, BA, AA
Posts: 3,670
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.
#261
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,051
Of course you are free to complain about it and talk to your friends about it and try to convince them to vote for someone else. But you are not free to interfere with the process and cause delays for the public. It is similar to protesting on the streets: you can protest all you want, but you can't block traffic.
#262
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,583
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?
#263
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,583
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)?
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)?
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.
#264
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
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.
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.
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.
#265
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
#266
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,672
^^ Far too many citizens are becoming sheep, ever-ready to be sheared by an increasingly oppressive government.
#267
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Bruce
#268
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,388
Where in either of these two regulations does it say I have to state, pronounce or otherwise verbally indicate what my name is?
CFR 1540.107: Submission to screening and inspection
CFR 1560.3
CFR 1540.107: Submission to screening and inspection
CFR 1560.3
#269
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,388
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.
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.
#270
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,174
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.
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.