The constitution says what the courts say it says. You and I are not federal judges, so our opinions are meaningless. I was simply posting what the courts have ruled regarding administrative searches and probable cause. For the purposes of this thread, let's just stick to the facts of what the law actually is, whether we agree with it or not. Debates on the separation of powers can go elsewhere.

The Constitution says what the Constitution says. Courts interpret how the Constitution applies/doesn't apply, given what the Constitution says.

Indeed. We can debate endlessly what the Constitution means, but not what it says. Its actual wording is known to everybody who cares enough to know.

Bruce

We can also debate endlessly the semantics of "says" vs. "means".

No, she's a TSA apologist. The one I'm talking about was a lot earlier; will try to find it.

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.

But you're wrong. It would be a pointless waste of money. An airport isn't uniquely dangerous and shouldn't be thought of as a fortress besieged by scary terrorists on all sides.

1) A LEO being "right there" at the time of another incident wouldn't make a whole heck of a lot of difference; a random shooter still has at least one good, clear shot at the beginning of the incident - and if he uses that first shot to shoot the LEO, then the only difference you've got in the situation is an additional public servant funeral.

2) Aside form the LAX shooter, how many other incidents of violence have there been at c/p's to justify the enormous expenditure of keeping LEOs there at all times? Bueller? Bueller? Could the answer be... NONE?

3) So, you don't want to reassign LEOs from the roving patrols to guard each c/p round the clock, you want to hire, train, equip, and pay the huge number of ADDITIONAL LEOs it would require to station one at each c/p round the clock. Based on a single incident? As I said before - THERE IS NO NEED. It would be a tremendous waste of time, money, resources, and valuable law enforcement skills which could be better utilized in other areas.

4) No one seemed to have issues with it after 9/11 because the entire country was quivering in fear under their beds. I know it's been a decade, but think back to the atmosphere in the country in the weeks after 9/11. The entire country was in shock. People who simply watched it on TV from thousands of miles away were being diagnosed with PTSD. From watching it on TV! The country was in a state of mass hysteria, and very few people were thinking rationally.***

5) Ah ha! Now we come to the real motivation - MONEY. You're naturally supportive of any endeavor that would allow your brothers in blue to collect fat OT paychecks for doing nothing more than sitting on their butts for 4 or 8 hours at a c/p. Easy duty, even easier than spending the morning in court or doing desk duty, because there's no paperwork involved. Heck, it's even easier than working a sporting event, because you wouldn't even have to be on your feet the whole time.

Let me just reiterate - THERE IS NO NEED for LEOs to be stationed permanently at the c/p's. NONE. A single incident does not constitute a new threat - the threat was always there, but the risk is so low that there has been only one incident in 7.2 billion transiting travelers, and that's just since TSA was established 11 years ago.

***As with most things, those fearful days after 9/11 today remind me of a movie quote, as the entire country dove under their beds or into their storm cellars and cried out for something, ANYTHING, to protect them from the Evil Muslim Terrorist Global Network of Evil. Robin Hood: Men in Tights, 1993:

Prince John: Save me, save me! Hurt them, hurt them!

Sheriff of Rottingham: Right! Save them, save them, hurt you, hurt you! I've got it!


And the federal government has indeed saved them and hurt us over the intervening decade.

...and the considerably lower risk of personal injury - brawls, fights, and other "violent occurrences" that take place with a certain frequency at "sporting events" are incredibly rare at the airports.

OK, let's leave it at that. This strict constructionism vs. judicial activism debate belongs in OMNI.

Actually, the discussion was about the legitimacy of the administrative search which is a discussion of the potential overreach of the court allowed by the legislative branch. Other than that, I agree. Let's give it a rest.

Security is a grand thing, but our over-doing of it oft leads to unfortunate lapses....

There's news that a report bearing an official City of LAX imprimatur maintains that the fatally wounded TSA agent lay bleeding to death for up to 30 minutes, while the terminal was being "secured" by LEOs who kept paramedics outside away from the victim.

I presume the world in which I grew up has gone, all those tales of soldiers, marines and sailors who in the face of enemy fire retrieved their wounded. Joe Friday's long retired, so I don't expect the LAPD is into that level of risk either, and I guess that the unarmed TSA agents didn't stick around for casualty evac.

And yet when something happens, some of you guys on here will be screaming that LEOs didn't respond fast enough.....

1 extra person at a checkpoint isn't going to make it a fortress... Hell, most airports already do that......

Funny ... I haven't seen anyone here screaming like that after the LAX incident ...

Thats because most of us here ase smart enough to know that A) the LAAPD response time was very good, and B) having an armed LEO at the c/p wouldnt have made any difference.

But there have already been calls for quicker resppnse - from those who want cops stationed at the c/p, and from those who want armed TSOs stationed at the c/p. Both are all about reducing response time to zero.