We can not give it up that cheaply.

The reason the Constitution is taking such a hit is our fault, we sit around griping about how unfair the system is but has anyone on this forum filed a lawsuit? Have any of the self proclaimed attorneys filed a lawsuit?

I have not filed a lawsuit because I frankly can't afford it. At this point in time I am living paycheck to paycheck on shortened hours. I can't afford to lose even an $89 ticket to manufacture a test case. So I do what I can, I type, I argue, I wear a t-shirt with the MMW picture on it, I preach to my co-workers and I try to convince others that some of what the TSA is doing is either statutorily illegal or Constitutionally illegal.

I am frustrated, I see my Country heading south at an alarming rate. I have a 12 year old, a 10 year old and a new one due in July. I am scared for them.

Last year I "feared" the terrorists, this year I fear the Government.

In the last year I seemed to notice less and less comments on online news stories that defend the TSA. My guesstimate is well under 10% currently.

I haven�t been able to nail down what the tipping point was, but I�m curious if there was one for you.

I tipped on the TSA a while back when I was reading the blog and was basically told that the TSA follows the law. Curious critter that I am I looked into the law and found that the TSA was breaking the law at almost every turn. Laws to me are the rules we play by. I expect the people in authority to follow the rules.

When I questioned Francine Kerner (TSA Chief Legal Counsel) about the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area, the answer was unsatisfactory in all regards. I may not be a lawyer but I can read. If you treat me as being too stupid to comprehend your lofty thoughts or are dismissive, it makes me determined to prove whatever you thought you were right on, wrong.

I can forgive a temporary bending of the law such as we had right after 9/11 with troops stationed in the airports, BUT I can not forgive the intentional breaking of the law by a Government entity.

The ID question came up while Bush was still in office and is not what made me fear my Government. That fear came in after the current administration came on the scene.

Reasons I fear our Government

• The "Right Wing Extremist" report that was so broad anyone that disagreed with the left is on it.
• The forcing of private businesses to take bail out money so the government can gain control.
• The Administration talking down the economy in order to make the recovery seem better.
• The spending on Government programs to "boost" the economy.
• The further overreaching by the Feds into states rights areas.

And things of that nature.

It seems that everything the current Administration is doing is advancing more control by the Federal Government in areas they have no business being. They seem to be trying to get as many people dependant on the Federal Government as possible. If that means tanking the economy so be it.

Firing the CEO of a private company is out of bounds, buying controlling interest in a company is out of bounds, forcing banks to take bailouts so you can control wages is out of bounds.

Ok I will wrap it up. I think that this Administration will try to force us into a depression, attempt to limit gun rights, attempt to limit travel rights, attempt to limit states rights, and attempt to limit personal liberties.

p.s. I don’t want any argument over my opinion on why I fear my Government posted here. I do not want this thread to get derailed or go Omni. If you feel you need to tell me how the cow ate the cabbage please post a comment on my blog. (link is in my signature) I just felt I needed to give a complete answer to the question.

Probably not. Like you (and me), they have neither the money nor the time luxury to push a case from trial court up to the Supreme Court.

Be that as it may, I think we on this forum are doing much more than average people, many of whom couldn't care less if their rights were being violated or taken away as long as they can continue to have their lattes, SUVs or hybrids, smartphones, and "American Idol." Sadly, I am not surprised.

Does anyone remember Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas retorting to people complaining about their civil rights being trampled on that civil right are no good if you are dead? (I heard he tired quickly from dancing on Patrick Henry's grave.)

That is tough to compete against when people care more about access to bottled water and sushi rolls than their rights.

That is so true. We have become a roll over society, whatever is easiest for me is the way to go.

+1

And the rest of the post illustrates the problem of fixing this through lawsuits (much as I would encourage anyone to try) - it's endemic in the whole structure. TSA is just the tip of the iceberg.

Someday the kids being indoctrinated to "just hand over your rights" will be the SCOTUS.

Of course not. You forgot the $5 fee for shipping and handling.

I'm actually surprised something like this didn't come up during the GOP convention in MSP. I have a permit to carry and have carried around the MSP airport. Its legal here, until you get to the WTMDs. Would they be able to detain me if I was there picking someone up and they spotted my legally carried weapon with their magic xray machine?

Sorry TK, not buying. Just to say that they (we) are breaking the law is not enough, specifically which laws? Please, don�t toss the 4th amendment at me, we both know better, and besides the cite would not be specific enough.

I had some small hope when I first saw this thread appear, for a reasonable discussion on the topic. While it has not gotten all that unreasonable, it has not stayed on-topic. I�d like to see it get back on topic, because this is the same direction I was trying to go with the thread I started and got so badly derailed by folks who wanted to split hairs and avoid the scope of the thread.

The truth hurts, doesn't it, Ron?

The simple fact is your OWN LAWYERS know that TSA is basically operating under the concept that until a court says no, TSA will essentially do as it pleases, the letter and spirit of the Constitution be damned.

DHS is no better. I've been in interagency meetings where DHS reps inevitably start pontificating with statements such as "if we don't do this (insert stupid operation/program here) NOW, BAD THINGS will happen." Invariably, when asked to produce a threat assessment that would justify their latest great idea, they can't, and are pushed back into their box.

Shortly after 9/11, early versions of the Patriot Act (bad name, I know) were circulating around DOJ. They were horrid, and certain specific provisions wouldn't have survived the first challenge. However, saner heads prevailed, and thanks to the fact that in our Department there are people who take their jobs and responsibility seriously, the unconstitutional provisions were stripped before the bill went to Capitol Hill. Yes, I know, some of you still object to it, but the last time I checked, it was still intact - I know of no major provision that has been successfully challenged in court.

You work for an agency and department that is essentially out of control when it comes to responsible strewardship of our civil liberties. I'd no more trust a DHS assessment of same than I would a North Korean promise their nuclear facilities were benign.

I'd buy that. I tipped hard after the STL TSO supervisor made up the "gel packs are allowed only for medicines, not infants" rule, which contributed to the spoiling of 13 oz of my wife's breast milk, and I checked it against what I thought I had remembered from the PV website: "Breast milk is in the same category as liquid medications" and "Frozen gels/liquids are permitted if required to cool medical and infant/child exemptions.". I had grudgingly accepted the SSI BS until I realized that the people in authority didn't even know their own secret rules. From the outside, it seems that the internal TSA documentation system is managed about as competently as the PV website. From the inconsistencies in medical exceptions, the misclassification of false alarms as successes, and their poor grasp of low-occurrence rate event detection, I think that even if they were, as my Amway-brother used to say, "perfectly legal", TSA is damagingly ineffective.

TSORon read this http://www.rebelmodel.com/tsa/2008/0...demand-id.html

and this

http://www.rebelmodel.com/tsa/2008/1...sekeeping.html

TK,

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but do you have a Constitutional Right to fly? Travel, yes, sure. But to fly?

So, with no ID disbarring you from flying, that doesn't preclude you from traveling unless no ID keeps you off the road, bus, train, boat, etc.

According to Gilmore, the judges claimed that the right to travel was not violated because denying a person a single mode of transportation did not hinder that right. The case they used to back that assertion was one where the person was denied an drivers license. Making the case that denying a person the ability to operate a vehicle is the same as denying a person the ability to ride in a vehicle is a very weak argument.

The TSA's measure of rule covers all modes of transportation and their rules can easily be transferred to the other non-aircraft modes.

Denying a person the use of a mode of transportation without a compelling reason fitted to that particular mode to me would be unconstitutional because the right is the freedom to travel the width and berth of the nation without undue hindrance.

Because the forced ID verification does nothing to enhance the safety of the aircraft, I contend it is an undue hindrance. There is no compelling Government interest in denying a person the ability to ride in a plane without an ID.

Contrast that with screenings, there is a compelling Government interest in denying a person the ability to ride in a plane without them being screened for weapons, explosive and incendiaries.

I read both, and while they are interesting I believe that you are reading far to much into the directives and laws involved. Hair splitting.

�(c) An individual may not enter a sterile area or board an aircraft if the individual does not present a verifying identity document as defined in �1560.3 of this chapter, when requested for purposes of watch list matching under �1560.105(c), unless otherwise authorized by TSA on a case-by-case basis.�

It seems you are assuming that this says that you must provide that ID verifying document only to the aircraft operator. Not quite accurate, that is not what it says. TSA now does the watch list matching, so a request for the ID from a TSA employee is a valid request, if done so prior to entering the sterile area. The TSO will use that document to verify that the boarding bass or sterile area access pass is in the possession of the individual who�s name appears on the document. The TSO will also seek to verify that the ID document is valid, not a forgery, and actually belongs to the individual presenting it as ID.