TSA --> TYJA?

[sirs]

Apples and Oranges.  Our military naval vessels (Coast Guard & Navy) are authorized to board any vessel they deem a threat, or acting suspiciously, or way back when, in need of paying their duties, and not in any way close to searching each and every person that wants to fly commercial

The one and largely only thing you have right is yes, I don't support this law.  No more than I would support Abortion, or Obamacare.  Just because the courts rule, doesn't make it an "ok" ruling.  Merely makes it legal to those looking for justification.  And in this case, a detestable slap n the face of our founders and the Constitution, most notably, the 4th amendment

[BT]

Actually not apples and oranges. You said administrative searches on regulated industries, whether it be maritime trade or airline travel goes far beyond what the founders intended, yet one of the foremost founders Alexander Hamilton, instituted the enforcement arm of the Customs Department to do just that. Seems there is a conflict between your idealized version of American History and the reality of the actual record, and your distaste for the law doesn't change that.
 

[Xavier_Onassis]

All sirs arguments tend to do this: sirs is wrong, but will not admit that he is wrong, so he he picks some minor nit and eventually the whole debate collapses into a heap of minuscule nitpickeries, in this case about the Coast Guard and the collection of tariffs.

The TSA has the job of preventing explosives on airliners. They would and should do this no mater who the president is. They have the right to do this, because that is how the courts have ruled.

You don't want to be scanned, get patted down. If you don't like that, buy your own damned plane and fly it yourself. Or drive, row, walk or swim.

[R.R.]

No court has ruled on the latest methods. You are mistaken. When the Rutherford Institute filed suits on behalf of 2 pilots, Obama changed the rules and pilots no longer are subjected to the invasive searches. Now that another suit is going to be filed, we find that a lot of the machines have now been roped off and are not in use. Obama's government is pushing the limit on this, and they probably know what they are doing is not legal and have gotten away with it, until now.

[sirs]

Actually not apples and oranges. 

Actually yes, as you're trying to use a historical means of an agency that doesn't exist or have the same function any more, that was authorized in collecting $$$ for the government prior to incomes taxes, along with its present manifestation that focuses on immgation and suspicious vessels near our country's borders as somehow analogus to the authorization to unreasonably search each, & potentially every person that merely wishes to fly

There are far more effective methods the TSA can employ in "preventing explosives on airlines".  But the PC elites won't stand for that.  Everyone needs to be considered a terrorist, since it could be offensive to actually focus attention on those far more likely to be a terrorist, or helping one

And when the next plane is hit by a terrorist attack, following the breakdown of these sexual harrassment tactics, what liberties shall we strip away then, in order to make us "feel safer"?

[Christians4LessGvt]

There are far more effective methods the TSA can employ in "preventing explosives on airlines". 
But the PC elites won't stand for that.  Everyone needs to be considered a terrorist, since it could
be offensive to actually focus attention on those far more likely to be a terrorist, or helping one

So just leave a HUGE gaping hole in security?
Again...do you not realize we are at war with very, very ruthless people.
So we don't screen kids, nuns, old grandma's.
How long will it be until they dress up an IslamoNazi like a Nun and blow our families into what looks like a bowl of grits?
Then we'll hear "well golly gee didn't Obama realize they'd dress somebody up in a Nun's outfit & blow up this 767 with hundreds of people on it"?

So SIRS all your better solutions are specifically what?
Please dont use the "cop out" answer "be like Israel".
You seem sooooo concerned about a citizens Constitutional Rights.
Well do you not support the Constitutional Rights of US Citizens if we were to switch to an Israeli "profiling method"?
What about my friend that is an Arab American?
Are you willing to wave his "Constitutional Rights"?
According to you my Arab American friend is "innocent until proven guilty".
So would we be able to keep him off a plane if he refuses to answer personal questions, refuses pat downs, refuses full scanning?
The Israelis would not allow him on a plane unless he submits, are you saying we should deny this American Citizen like the Israelis?
Where does your constitutional outrage start and stop for Arab Americans SIRS?

BTW Israel has full-body scanners on order.
The US has 30,000-40,000 flights a day, Israel has no where near that number.
The US has dozens of very large international airports, Israel does not.
At any given moment, roughly 5,000 planes are in the skies above the United States dwarfing Israel.
In one year, controllers handle an average of 64 million takeoffs and landings in the US.
It's not all quick and easy in Isreal either:

Passengers waiting at Ben Gurion International Airport, September 13, 2010

[BT]

The mention of the historical agency and their mission was to counter your claim that administrative searches were not within the founders vision.

The citing of caselaw shows that throughout this countries history administrative searches have been deemed constitutional, which counters your claim this process isn't.

You can deny the relevancy of those particular truths, but they still remains truths.

Which leads us away from the legality of the searches to the popularity of these searches.

I, like you, am not crazy about them, and i am not surprised that critics of Obama would lay this all at his feet, but the fact remains that the body scanners were first ordered under the Bush Administration and that his Homeland Security Secretary now represents the company that makes them. It is nice to know that John Kerry also got onto the gravy train, which is a rare example of bi- partisan participation in policy profiteering.

I don't fly often enough for this to be of concern to me. I am far more concerned with this governments economic policy and its possible impact on inflation, which seems to be on the rise.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Israel has 6 million people in a country so tiny that there are very few national flights. Most flights in Israel are international flights. Israel has no constitutional rights, because it has no constitution at all. The Israeli government can, and dies, arrest people and hold them without charges for as long as it likes. Everyone flying in Israel knows this.

A ten second body scan is not harmful and not inconvenient. No one actually sees anything that should embarrass anyone.

I hardly think that anything that the Founders said or wrote anticipated air travel or suicide bombers. So your opinion of what they might say is irrelevant. You might as well ponder whether Ben Franklin would drive a Porsche, a Cadillac or a Lexus. Hell, he'd be greatly impressed by a 1986 Hyundai Excel.

Whether one chooses to go through a scanner, get patted down or not flay at all is simply a personal decision. None of us will ever get to vote on it.

[sirs]

Cu4, with all due respect, I admire your stauch conservative credientials.  I admire how you can objectively compliment Obama when he appropriately uses military assets to go after terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and where ever else they're hiding.  But I can also objectively deduce how you're allowing your emotions cloud your ususal common sense conservative stances.  Whether or not there is this "huge" gap as you say, still doesn't justify the ignoring of the constitution, when it happens to get in the way of this supposed "gap".  Your defense that the courts have ruled, ergo it's constitutional, ergo, its ok, is precisely the same tactic the left uses when defending Abortion, Obamacare, Social Security, etc.  Just because the Government got away with it, doesn't mean its ok.  Just because you would feel safer if everyone is groped or pornagrafically imaged, doesn't make it "reasonable".  There are more effective, albeit less politically correct techniques, to plug security gaps that don't impact everyone's freedom.  They merely target those who are far more likely, than the 10year old autistic child or the 60+year old female with bilateral total knee replacements

I could produce countless articles from conservatives, that you yourself admire, that demonstrate the error in your judgement.  Can you produce more than 1 conservative pundit that sees it your way? (and No Bt, that's isn't advocating that Cu4 needs others to make up his mind for him....I figure that would be something you're looking to try and claim, so I thought it best to nip that in the bud)  Point being, it's a staunchly conservative position to support and defend the Constitution.  EVEN at the expense of a sense of more security.  "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

[BT]

and No Bt, that's isn't advocating that Cu4 needs others to make up his mind for him....I figure that would be something you're looking to try and claim, so I thought it best to nip that in the bud

Clairvoyant too? Your talents simply are amazing.

[sirs]

Given your track record, as of late, I aim to please

[BT]

At least your misrepresentations are consistent. Cudo's for that

[sirs]

Didn't realize you've now changed the definition of logical deductive reasoning to misrepresentation.  Be sure to alert Websters

[BT]

And perhaps you should leave the personal attacks out of your flailing arguments.

[Christians4LessGvt]

SIRS when I state the courts and congress have deemed something "Constitutional"
that is because it is in fact presently "constitutonal". I do not support abortion,
but how could I possibly argue that abortion is unconstitutional when the Supreme Court
has ruled that it is? I may think something is wrong, but we have a system where the
courts and congress interpret our constitution. That is reality. Sure things can change
but that doesn't change the present reality. Again, it is what it is.

Survival within reason trumps everything for me SIRS.
If Thomas Sowell wants to drop TSA intense screening...well fine...but I am going with survival.
In my view it's sad that people like you have to be badly burned before taking action instead of being pro-active.
Fine...drop all the new more intense screeening, try to implement the Israeli procedures that wont really work here
And when multiple planes start blowing up....and the public will DEMAND what I support now.
It's just too bad people have to die to force you into more intense action