Problems with the TSA

Of course I read the link, he FOIA'd, filed ADA complaints, and is threatening a lawsuit.

So, in order:

1. FOIA will get him some documents in about 3-4 years. Maybe. It'll take a while, and he'll get the old copies.

2. The ADA filings will do nothing. the ADA specifically exempts travel by aircraft when it comes to accommodations for forms of public transportation. It also does not say anything about US Government administrative searches. He would actually have to try to find something under the ACA (Air Carrier Access act), and there is nothing there.

Any sane disability lawyer will tell him the above. This is all bluster for a a 1983 lawsuit, however, ....

The 1983 lawsuit is probably a non-starter on the 4th amendment side. You'd have to show the TSA's actions are contrary to clearly established federal law. At least on the facts seen so far, they aren't, and courts have generally agreed to this. If they had arrested him, maybe he'd have a 1st amendment claim like Tobey does (so far) in Tobey v. Jones. But again, even sympathetic courts so far have thrown out most 1983 actions for 4th amendment violations against the TSA.

3. I am a lawyer, actually, so I don't need to excuse myself. I've actually even got a ADA recognized disability and have actually fought fights under the ADA.

(though, in the interest of full disclosure, my normal day job now is IP law, i have dealt with plenty of constitutional law :P)

In any case, i'm opposed for the reasons I stated in the first reply: He is, IMHO, unlikely to accomplish anything except making bad law through the above. Even his video is causing divided public opinion in this very thread. If you want to have a chance of doing something right now, you need the old disabled war vet who is being strip searched because blah blah blah.

It's certainly his right to pursue what he wants, but I personally don't see it as helpful to the cause.

The "rules" about liquid are silly. The TSA plays the ball rather than the man, going after 3 ounce bottles rather than people with a history of terrorist sympathy.

Are you a doctor? What qualifications do you have to determine that something does not have a valid medical use?

My father travels with a bottle of juice/soda regularly because it is a reliable, known, and fast way of raising his blood sugar when it gets too low, and it is far more palatable than non-liquid methods of doing so. He has never been hassled when it is explained to a TSA agent (and he has a doctor's note too). Just because it's not prescribed or regulated doesn't mean it can't be medically necessary.

Not to mention I have personally traveled with all kinds of things including Costco-sized bottles of contact lens solution and gigantic aerosol cans... it is what it is and with screening I don't see why TSA can't let people through with it.

> That's literally nonsense. Morality is an abstraction of what constitutes proper behavior. An arbiter is a particular body that judges disputes. In the United States, that judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, per article III of the Constitution. Your concept of the Constitution as a moral agent, ignored by the rest of the government (including the Supreme Court) is just irrational.

In this paragraph, you called my position "nonsense" and "irrational," yet you gave no reason for those claims whatsoever. I agree with the other stuff you said, modulo I'm not sure how you define "moral agent."

The point is, morality DOES exist, irrespective of what any person or government does or says. This is the normal English use of "morality." Government action can either be in line with that, or contradict it. I'm not saying that the Constitution is the source or morality or an arbiter of morality. It's just that the 4th amendment _is_ in accordance with morality, along with the rest of the Constitution, broadly speaking.

> That doesn't make the entire government illegitimate.

So, what's the line? Clearly if the government didn't respect articles I, II, and III of the constitution whatsoever, and just appointed a dictator, it would not be legitimate. On the other hand, if it makes a minor (but illegal) clerical error, it is clearly still legitimate.

_My_ answer to this is that there is no set threshold; it's just a strategic question, a matter of rhetoric. So I don't think there is anything weighing on this topic. What do you think the threshold is?

> If you have read it you have certainly not understood it. Your arguments border upon the delusional.

That's just ridiculous. You keep saying this, but you haven't made a convincing argument that I'm wrong about anything, much less _delusional_, which is an entirely different beast altogether.

I'm not sure if you understand that there is a potential difference between what is right and wrong, and what is actually written into law.