How does it constitute "interfering with the screening process"? Unless the concern is that something can be concealed in a closed hand (except for one extended finger), it is 100% protected First Amendment speech (see Cohen v. Superior Court). Also, do an FT search on, "Kip Hawley is an idiot," for the adventures of an FTer who wrote this on his "freedom baggie," and got to explain the Constitution to a couple of TSOs and their supervisor.

Honestly, it wouldn't have occurred to me to do this until I read your post (nothing personal). As a firm believer in the First Amendment, now I'm inclined to test your hypothesis.

And what is this secret list you're describing? Is this the watch list? Any TSO who uses the list as retaliation for a perceived, but otherwise lawful, insult could and should wind up on the receiving end of a lawsuit, not just against TSA for the constitutional violation, but against the TSO personally for abuse of process and officious intermeddling.

I doubt that he did. TSOs aren't law enforcement officers. They're no different than postal clerks and I sincerely doubt they were required to swear any oath, given that they have no legal power to do anything other than verify identity and perform a limited administrative search to verify that no weapons, explosives or incendiaries are admitted to the sterile area.

They have no legal power to verify identity either.

All TSOs swear an Oath to take the position (or they are supposed to, I was not present at all 45k swearing in ceremonies). TSOs have the legal power to deny entry to the sterile area if the screening process is not completed (by verbal notification, if more than verbal notification is needed then LEO is notified). We are not LEOs.

To take what position? As an attorney, I swore an oath to uphod and defend the Constitution. Whatever oath you took has no more meaning than the Boy Scout oath.

You have the legal power to deny access to the sterile area, but you do not have the legal power to prevent it. For that, you must call a LEO. Moreover, your "power" is limited to determining whether a passenger or his baggage contains weapons, explosives or incendiaries. That's it. No different than a postal clerk who refuses to take a leaky parcel.

As I recall, you're one of the "good ones," so this is not directed at you personally, but at some of your compatriots who confuse the uniform with "authority."

Correct.

This is the oath that every TSO makes, word for word....
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Interesting. Then why do so many TSOs violate the Constitution?

I'm not saying it has any meaning, but federal civil service employees take an oath: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode5/u...1----000-.html
http://www.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp

Most other agencies keep it though.

Otherwise, if the oath has no meaning, then there is no reason for it to be administered.

??
It's the law to take the oath, but most of the time it's very perfunctory--like much of the paperwork one fills out when starting a job. It doesn't create any special mystical power. It doesn't create penalties for breaking it. Etc. It has little real power, although it certainly has symbolic meaning, and many employees probably take it seriously.

What I'm saying is that even if it's the law, if it's just treated as a tick box then it's essentially pointless to force people to take the oath. It should have penalties for breaking it, and it should have more than just symbolic meaning - even if some or most of the people who take it take it seriously.

It's clear that many at TSA and DHS don't take it seriously. I've seen some screeners post on PV that they're fine with a lot of the violations that go on and that it's part of security, deal with it. But when it comes to them, all of the sudden they want THEIR rights protected.

I think we agree.

I, for one, would like to thank those who bait the TSAers. To me, they are like the guy going 90 on the freeway, they soak up all the attention from the authorities so I can go 80 without fear of being stopped. So, I say, Thank You. Please keep it up.

Many of us do take it seriously. It's sad that the ones who don't are the ones who get all the attention of those on forums such as this. And for what it's worth, I do agree there should be penalties for breaking it.

Now, whether or not some of the things we do constitutes a violation is a matter of opinion, but I will say this, I am a traveller as well, and even before I came to work for TSA, I never felt like anything that was done to me, whether it be secondary screening or bag checks or whatever, was violating any of my rights. But again, that is a matter of opinion.

Well, you need look no further than this thread:

As I said in my original reply, Cohen v. Superior Court is quite clear on this point, and the threat of "end[ing] up on a nude o scope all the time list," for engaging in protected First Amendment speech is way over the line.

"Insulting Security"? Oh, my bad, I read that as an adjective instead of a ...gerund, I guess.