Cholula,
Your right. Part of this board is to vent frustrations, and God knows have plenty of them about the state of the air travel security in the US! When I posted that comment, I had just finished reading about 9 different threads about this exact same topic, and sometimes it gets a little old. I do love the idea about a league of travellers fighting for rights of travellers, but at times get fed up with the fruitless whining here in the Travel Safety/Security Board.

Lets see here. You were entering America from a foriegn country and were:

A. Asked about yourself
B. Told that you may have to bring I.D. in the future
C. Contracted "toe-jam"

Yeah, I can see how this country is trampling your rights. You should be able to fly in any time you like, give the finger to anyone in uniform and walk around barefooted without fear of getting cooties (which I'm sure the CIA placed at every airport). Everyone knows that there is a three week cap on all security measures. Try the ACLU, they should be able to help.

Hey hilton
If it were only my ID I wouldn't *****ing but I am being fingerprinted , I am having to tell god knows who all sorts of personal data YOU wouldn't dream of telling some stranger and I am having to have some stranger track my banking & credit details without me know exactly who is doing what with those details even if I am only coming on vacation.

In a nutshell my control over who gets what information & who does what with it (legel or illegal) has been taken away!! And THAT is what I am *****ing about. No I was not *****ing - I was stating that those who were out to distroy our way of life the way we knew it - have succeeded!! and that is the greatest tragedy there is - they have won over the freedom & demoracy that we have known. Now that makes me ANGRY!!!

Actually, they don't. "Rights" are specifically guaranteed in the Constitution, and they can only be suspended under the most compelling of circumstances. If you can cite an authority (not just an opinion) that says different, I'd like to see it.

As an off-topic example, for most of my life I have been hearing about people that claim that they have a "right" to smoke marijuana, as it harms no one, it occurs naturally, and and it brings them enjoyment (there's usually a reference here to "the pursuit of happiness," which is not in the Constitution, but rather the Declaration of Independence). But there is no such right, and the use of marijuana is unlawful nearly everywhere. You may believe that your rights include "all of your basic freedoms of mobility and action," but that phrase is so vague and open to interpretation that I don't think it would survive as an argument in any court.
You make an assumption that the Fourth Amendment guarantees a right to privacy. It does not. The Fourth Amendment provides the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and even that right can be limited when there is a compelling governmental interest. This citation from Graham v. Connor is not precisely on point, as it addresses a use of force, rather than a less obtrusive search, but it illustrates my argument: �Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual�s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.�

At this point in time, the law is on the side of the government, in that there is a "countervailing governmental interest" in insuring the safety and security of the traveling public, and that information can be collected, baggage can be searched, and travelers can be screened, or, in the alternative, they can find some other way of getting from point A to point B than by flying on a commercial carrier. That could change tomorrow, but this is today, and insisting that you have rights because you think you should have them is not going to bring that change on any more quickly.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!

The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee rights. We Americans have a host of rights that pre-date the Constitution and exist independent of the Constitution. The Constitution limits the powers of the national government. As for a source, refer to The Federalist Papers. The Bill of Rights was basically an inducement to people skittish about a written document conveying many duties to a central government so they would agree to ratify the Constitution. We should be very clear about the issue of rights and their origins, so that the current administration's actions are seen in the proper context.

What is so aggravating about the governments actions are that these rules, regulations, and policies will almost certainly not stop a determined terrorist. The simple, non-intrusive method of fortifying cockpit doors makes another 9/11 attack practically impossible. Forcing Americans to remove their shoes, get frisked and wanded like common criminals, and supplying names and birthdates to fly will not stop a determined terrorist. These policies are fighting the last war and are likely as effective as the Maginot Line was in World War II.

What would the government do if explosives in unscreened cargo destroyed (a) (some) airliner(s)? How about the possibility of shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missiles? A bombing of an airport, say the Southwest Airlines terminal at LAX or McCarran in Las Vegas? Maybe our goverment could take one step that would keep us safer in many different ways, securing our borders. By the way, that is one duty mandated by the Constitution.

I disagree. The Federalist Papers are a series of essays written by the framers of the Constitution. They are helpful in understanding the thinking that went into this document, but they have no legal impact on the document itself. The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and thus part of the Constitution itself. I posit that this is where rights are described and delineated.

To illustrate, let's say for the sake of argument that there are rights, as you say, "that pre-date the Constitution and exist independent of the Constitution." What are these rights, specifically? Has anyone ever claimed any of these extra-Constitutional rights to have been violated? If so, what court heard the claim, and what was the basis for its ruling? And, just to bring this back on track, how do these so far unnamed rights impact on the topic of this discussion, that "the bad guys have won?"

Let me paraphrase: No document grants people rights. We obtain them by natural law because we're human. Then we make a government after that, and the government can only do what we collectively say it can do. There is even an example of a specific right into which we are all born - to alter or abolish the government and institute new Government - that predates the Constitution.

Beyond that, there are many rights which have been recognized by court decisions although the rights aren't explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Among these are: (lifted from the excellent site www.usconstitution.net)

Things that are not in the U.S. Constitution:

Innocent until proven guilty

The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury.

The right to privacy

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v. Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self- incrimination limit.

The Right to Travel

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel. The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thomson, Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Thanks to Marko Liias for the idea.
--------------

And how have the bad guys won? Specifically, the rights I've lost are the presumption of innocence (I get treated like a criminal at the airport no matter what I've done or haven't done) and the right to privacy (since when do strangers have the gall to handle my breasts and call it security? or take down people's names if they get SSSS or require a bag check?) The nonsensical airport invasions of our personal privacy have gone beyond what's necessary, and the new style of airport screening has yet to be tested in court. The courts have specifically stated that metal detectors are fine, but have also specifically stated that strip searches without cause are impermissible. Since the new-style airport screening means just about everything imaginable is in bounds except strip searches, I think screening is ripe for a new court challenge.

While it's true that the courts have said the fourth amendment doesn't protect us from warrantless searches at the airport which would be "unreasonable" anywhere else, those same courts also at one time enabled slavery and the separate but equal doctrine. Someday, we will be free of these unwarranted intrusions, even in an airport. And until that day, I'll take Amtrak, and keep writing to my representatives and senators and local paper.