Airport Security Is Killing Us

> The fact of the matter is that it's SCOTUS that sets the standards here, not the Constitution.

Well duh. Because the Constitution is inanimate, due to actually just being paper and ink. Meanwhile, SCOTUS consists of living people with free will and the ability to walk around.

However, nothing about these facts implies that what the Sovereign Council of Nine says is consistent with the ideals that led to the creation of said document.

Am I the only one to have pleasant experience flying?

I usually travel 2-4 times a year by myself as a single male. I plan for security (eg. I don't try to bring along liquids and wear shoes that are easily removed) and haven't had to wait in a security line longer than 15 minutes in the US in 6+ years.

I have been pulled aside twice to be patted down by the TSA, neither of which invasive nor did they get near my genitals. In contrast I have also been patted down by airport security in Belgium (much more invasive, didn't touch crotch) and been frisked twice by police in the USA (very invasive, definitely did touch crotch). [I have no knowledge of the female experience of being frisked - unfortunately I suspect a much higher level of both discomfort and inappropriate groping]

I don't like that our security is based stupid rules instead of smart security analysis, but the level of vitriol I see in the internet is totally disproportionate to my experience. The worst part of flying for me is getting stuck in the security line behind some person who still doesn't know full bottles of water aren't allowed through security and then try to argue with the TSA agents in an attempt to save $4 - and given that I still get through the line often under 10 minutes, that is more of pet peeve than a real issue worth complaining about.

That's like saying I consent to have the sandwich you made but I don't consent to give you money for it, therefore you the sandwich shop owner are robbing me. You analyze the cost-benefit and consent to the whole package. You can't pick and choose.

The view that "They have not been ruled as constitutionally reasonable upon by the SCOTUS, and that until they are, they are forbidden by the fourth amendment." is incorrect.

Were it true then every single new law or administrative action (of the federal government) would need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court before it could be applied. Instead, we have the court system to address these problems after the fact. We assume that laws and policies are constitutional when put into place and use the court system to correct instances where they are not.

For the sake of discussion, let's switch to something similar. The shoe scans are a nuisance and are not effective. People dislike it even worse than the scanners and pat-downs. It takes time, which slows down the number of people who can be processed. Some people have balance or other problems, so it means there needs to be a chair during the line before screening. Others have religious or cultural aversion to putting socks or bare feet on a dirty ground, so many airports provide booties or paper slippers. This makes everything more complex.

The requirement that people must take their shoes off has not "been ruled as constitutionally reasonable upon by the SCOTUS." Therefore, under your viewpoint is it forbidden by the 4th amendment?

The view of the circuit courts, and implied view of the Supreme Court, seems to be that the pat-downs which you mention are reasonable under the 4th amendment, given the "degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests" and that it occurs in a place where "the need for such measures to ensure public safety can be particularly acute."

It is precisely your neo-imperialist, 'preemptive strike' mentality that is the cause of contemporary terrorism.

It is, in fact, terrorism itself.

If you think your life as a Western consumer is somehow non-violent and unrelated to the global situation, I pity your naïveté.

I haven't the time to expound further.