TSA --> TYJA?

[BT]

No, I'm spot on, since Cu4 supports the current unreasonable searches because to date, the courts have ruled that way

Perhaps you can show where CU said the only reason he supports the searches is because the courts ruled that they are constitutional. I think he has given numerous other non-legal reasons why he supports the procedure.

[sirs]

Not really.  I've seen "we're at war".  I've seen the implication that he believes he's safer with the searches.  But when it came down to brass tax on why its reasonable searching, the defense was that the courts had ruled that way.  Simple as that

His rights don't supercede mine or yours, merely because he feels safer

[BT]

I don't think he is claiming that his "rights" supercede yours.

I think he was challenging your assertion that the TSA was trampling the 4th. The courts disagree.

They have narrowed the scope of TSA authority but left in place the primary function of making sure weapons and explosives do not make it onto aircraft.

When i fly, i go to the pat down line automatically. 5 stents have  a tendency to set off all kinds of alarms.

[sirs]

I don't think he is claiming that his "rights" supercede yours.

The implication is clear.  I'm being forced to be searched, UNREASONABLY, based on.......an apparent presumption that I'm a terrorist, and that he'll feel safer.  Otherwise there is no basis.  At least not one that's been made any clearer

I think he was challenging your assertion that the TSA was trampling the 4th. The courts disagree.

They are.....just as the Government has trampled on the Commerce Clause, more times that I can count, not to mention an apparent right to an Abortion, all validated by the court.  Subverting the clear intentions of the Constitution, by way of the court supporting the subversion, in no way makes the act, "ok".  Merely makes it legal

But let's get it on record:  How are the current groping, pat downs, and nude imaging performed by the the Federal Government and the TSA, of any and everyone flying, reasonable, under the law?

[BT]

The implication is clear.  I'm being forced to be searched

He isn't forcing you to be searched. The law is.

The link i posted earlier is from the 9th District Federal Court of Appeals. The only group with higher authority is SCOTUS.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html

[sirs]

The implication is clear.  I'm being forced to be searched

He isn't forcing you to be searched. The law is.

And who is in favor of that law??

The link i posted earlier is from the 9th District Federal Court of Appeals. The only group with higher authority is SCOTUS.

Yea, .......and?  Subverting the clear intentions of the Constitution, by way of the court supporting the subversion, in no way makes the act, "ok".  Merely makes it legal

[BT]

And who is in favor of that law??

At a minimum the majority of lawmakers who voted for it, vs those few who voted against it.

Subverting the clear intentions of the Constitution, by way of the court supporting the subversion, in no way makes the act, "ok". 

Did the US Government have Customs Houses during the time of the founders?

Were they able to board and inspect vessels coming into port?

[sirs]

And who is in favor of that law??

At a minimum the majority of lawmakers who voted for it, vs those few who voted against it.

+ those who support the TSA's having been given said authority.  This isn't a bubble Bt.  Those that whole heartededly support the searching wouldn't be against the law that gives those the authority to search   

Subverting the clear intentions of the Constitution, by way of the court supporting the subversion, in no way makes the act, "ok". 

Did the US Government have Customs Houses during the time of the founders?

Doubtful.  Which is why we have a procedure for amending the Constitution, in the event we need to subvert it properly and legally.  The Constitution is in place to LIMIT what the US Government can do.  Then again, you know that, which is why it's kind of funny you asking such a question

[BT]

Doubtful.

I suggest you bone up on early US History.

Tariffs and Customs were the chief means of support for the Federal Government.

Not only were they authorized to collect but they were also authorized to enforce these administrative statutes.

[sirs]

Irrelevent to the point being made about the Constitution, and the Government usurping/subverting it, against the clear intentions of it.  You asked a largely irrelevent question, to which I guessed at.  Thank you for correcting me on the answer

It's still irrevelent

[BT]

I don't see how it is irrelevant to the current situation. You harped on founders intent. The Cutter Revenue Service was established by Alexander Hamilton who either through his essays in the Federalist Papers or his speeches on the floor of the Constitutional Convention had more to do with its passage than any other figure in early US History.

So what we have is the founders willing to search and seize if it met the requirements of the common good, and we have courts of today ruling that the TSA does not trample on the 4th.

What we are left with is your personal dislike for the law.

And i'm not too crazy about it either. But it is what it is and will be what it will be until it is changed.

Because that was the founders intent.
 

[sirs]

I don't see how it is irrelevant to the current situation. You harped on founders intent.

CONSTITUTION....BILL OF RIGHTS....GOVERNMENT LIMITATIONS.  If you want to call that harping, so be it.  Your use of "common good" was in the government supporting itself, for lack of any income tax at the time.  This issue has nothing to do with that, not to mention it's current lack of existance, outside that of the Coast Guard, thus the irrelevency

Or are you going to argue now that the Coast Guard's primary function (or any function for that matter) is to collect tarriffs


 

[BT]

Your use of "common good" was in the government supporting itself, for lack of any income tax at the time. 

You are familiar with tariffs, are you not. Import duties on goods from foreign countries that raises the prices of those goods in favor of locally produced goods?

That was also a part of the levies under the Treasury department of the times. Protecting local producers might be considered by some to be in the interest of the common good.

And though you scoffed at the common good being met by funding the federal government with these tariffs and duties, that funding would have to come from somewhere most likely the various states and by extension the citizens of those states. So i think that Hamilton had a very good idea. 

Or are you going to argue now that the Coast Guard's primary function (or any function for that matter) is to collect tariffs

i would suggest you stick to arguing what i have written versus possibly misrepresenting my point. I know you hate when that happens.

[sirs]

Your use of "common good" was in the government supporting itself, for lack of any income tax at the time. 

You are familiar with tariffs, are you not. Import duties on goods from foreign countries that raises the prices of those goods in favor of locally produced goods?

Yes, and per your own link, you're aware of the function of the Revenue Cutter Service?  The taking in of tariffs & duties to PAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO FUNCTION, as there was no other form of income taxes at the time

And you're aware that that function and program no longer exists, correct?  What's left is the Coast Guard agency

And you must also be aware of the complete irrelvency this current tangent is taking us as it relates to the function of the Constitution and its clear intentions, by its founders.  The Revenue Cutter Service was a good idea, for what it needed to do, at the time.  And it had nothing to do with making anyone feel safer

[BT]

Perhaps you missed the part of where the Cutter Revenue Service had the authority to board and search ships at any time. Not much different than the authority TSA has over airplane access at airports.

And perhaps you are unaware that The Customs Department has been rolled into the Customs and Border Protection Agency which is under the Homeland Security Department.

On a Typical Day in Fiscal Year 2009, CBP...
02/16/2010

Processed:

    * 989,689 passengers and pedestrians
          o 240,407 incoming international air passengers
          o 45,735 passengers/crew arriving by ship
          o 703,546 incoming land travelers
    * 57,761 truck, rail, and sea containers
    * 271,278 incoming privately owned vehicles

   
Executed:

    * 2,139 apprehensions at and in between the ports of entry for illegal entry
    * 616 refusals of entry at our ports of entry
    * 107 arrests of criminals at ports of entry

Intercepted:

    * 72 fraudulent documents

Seized:

    * 6,643 kilograms of drugs
    * $300,582 in undeclared or illicit currency
    * 4,291 prohibited plant, meat and animal byproducts, and 454 agricultural pests intercepted

   

Rescued:

    * 488 events with a total of 1281 people

Deployed:

    * 21,863 vehicles, 290 aircraft, 225 watercraft, and 280 horse patrols
    * 1,419 canine enforcement teams

Protected more than:

    * 5,000 miles of border with Canada
    * 1,900 miles of border with Mexico
    * 95,000 miles of shoreline


Employed approximately:

    * 57,519 employees, including:
          o 21,058 CBP officers
          o 2,394 CBP agriculture specialists
          o 20,119 Border Patrol agents
          o 1,212 Air and Marine agents including:
                + 47 Air Enforcement officers
                + 823 Air Interdiction agents
                + 342 Marine Interdiction agents

Managed:

    * 327 ports of entry within 20 field offices
    * 139 Border Patrol stations within 20 Sectors, with 37 permanent checkpoints

http://www.cbp.gov