Contrary to TSA's assumption EVERYTHING done by a Government agency on U.S. soil is governed by the U.S. Constitution.

Wow I was this close to jumping all over you. For those that misread what he said like I did, let me clarify what he is saying.

If a Government entity endorses or knowingly allows its employees to act in an unconstitutional manner then the weight of that falls on the entity.

If on the other hand an employee of a Government entity acts alone in an unconstitutional manner the weight falls strictly on that employee.

BOTH acts are unconstitutional it just comes down to who gets smacked for it.

The blame game for 9/11 stretches further back than Bush. If we go down this road it will drown us in irrelevant comments.
Let's keep politics out of this.

Fact is this, on 9/11 we were attacked. The blame falls solely on those that attacked us. The blame for things that we, the people, have allowed to happen in response to the attacks fall solely on us.

The TSA thinks they have been carefully crafted to skirt the Constitution by using semantics to get around the law. Their house is built on sand and it will come crashing down as long as we are persistent with the shovels.

I am willing to fight the TSA in court with a well planned test case but I lack the money to do so. You guys have no idea how much I want to parade the TSA into a court and beat them senseless. If my tombstone said "Here lies Trollkiller, he slayed the TSA" I could die happy.

Correct. Like my example of a cop overstepping his authority, it's a constitutional violation but you can't paint the entire agency as such. If a TSO or even an entire office oversteps (like in the link posted) you can't say the entire agency is in violation of the Constitution.

In order for an entire agency to be viewed as unconstitutional or "shredding the Constitution" or whatever you have to point out policies that are out of line and not individual actions.

Sorry for any confusion.

Not what I was saying at all.

Government-required identification for travel immediately comes to mind.

Really? If that's the case I stand corrected. I didn't realize the TSA was regulating certificates.

That would be outside their scope, IMO. Whether it rises to the level of unconstitutional, though, seems a little suspect to me.

Individual actions can be found in abundance that are unconstitutional. But to indict the agency (TSA as a whole) it must be a matter or policy.

Now we're getting somewhere. :D

This is one of the areas that I was thinking of when I posted this topic. This is one of the areas that seems to me to be butting up against the Constitution. But then, of course, we come to the question of whether or not there's a Constitutional right to fly. We obviously have a right to travel, but the conveyance itself isn't really specified. If aircraft are disallowed there are still a number of other conveyances available. They just might not be as efficient.

Hell, we have to have government-required ID to drive too, do we not? Hell, we even have to have government-required ID (SSN) to do a lot of things. Loans, home purchase, etc. is near impossible without it.

Here's how I see it...

TSA itself is not unconstitutional. Searches at the airport are upheld and has been going on since the 70's. When you buy a plane ticket, you're consenting to a search at the checkpoint. This has been in effect since the 70's, and the only big difference nowadays is that a federal agency, as opposed to private security firms, are taking over the searches.

That said, some actions and policies of TSA can be considered unconstitutional, such as the no-ID policy. The liquid policy, while silly, isn't actually unconstitutional because it falls under the color of law. On the other hand, not having an ID and being subject to verification, especially for domestic flights, can be considered to be voiding current Terry-stop laws, when you do not have to present ID when asked. Federal law, however, is a complicated beast, especially with administrative policies. I still think the no-ID rule is silly and should either go away (no ID checks), or being given a SSSS when not having ID (no verification - anonymous travel). If I had to settle for a compromise, I would go for the old policy (no ID, you get a SSSS only).

Just my two cents.

Then they are not within the purview of the Federal government, and thus unconstitutional.

Tell that to someone in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, etc...

Not at the federal level.

Only because of the scumbag Patriot Act. Otherwise, it's an individual and a business, who should be left alone to do business as they see fit.

Well, I'm just saying the facts on who screwed up. Would point this out if it was a D in the Oval Office as well.



Which falls to my point about reducing ourselves to the level of our enemy in shredding up the spirit of The Constitution.

Be careful here. You need a DL to prove that you are competent and qualified to operate a automobile. I'm not trying to fly a plane - just sit in one. Other then revenue protection for the airlines, the ID check accomplishes nothing, except opens up the system for Constituitional abuses.

I think the basic issue is that since 9/11, "security" in all aspects of life, has definitely trumped "liberty" -- hence the famous Ben Franklin quote. The Bush Administration and the Congress in place in the 2001 timeframe both took the approach that "security" = "one nation under surveillance..."

The Constitution definitely took a back seat, if it was even in the conversation at all. "One nation under surveillance..." allowed all sorts of thing to happen unchecked. The no-fly and SSSS lists with no legal means of redress are just one example. People have mentioned Terry Stops versus ID checks. I think another example is that the TSA has really stretched the "in plain sight" standard. Since they have never identified the smallest item that could be a threat to an aircraft, everything is in plain sight, even in the smallest compartments of your carry-on or on your person.

The basic problem is that we who fly often are a relatively small minority of the population who has had our noses rubbed in the shredded Constitution. It's just not that big of a deal with the majority of Americans. As a matter of fact, I have seen enough evidence to make me believe that they think all this surveillance is a good thing, and, a lot of them resent the fact that we get to travel around the country and the world.

I think the real problem is not so much the Constitution as it is the implementing CFRs and the famous SOP. If there was a public comment period at all for a lot of these CFRs, virtually all comments were blown off or ignored. There were perfunctory legal reviews, mostly by Francine, the Googling TSA Lawyer, and like-minded individuals at Justice. I've seen some of the legal reviews (just look at some of the Privacy Impact Statements on line) and none of them pass the giggle test, even for this non-lawyer. The Kangaroo Court of fines is yet another example.

The good news is that the new DHS and TSA leadership can change the CFRs if pushed by the White House. Also, the AG staff can conduct a new legal review. I guess that's where I would start. There are lots of things that can be fixed without even filing a single lawsuit.