Is the TSA's full body scan requirement at airports constitutional?

[wtmusic]

Background:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4584281

(basically, it comes down to whether you think they're "reasonable" under A4)

[MineralMan]

1. Of course they're constitutional. You may not like them, but

airport security measures have not been successfully challenged in court. My parents, who are both 86, just returned from a trip to a B-17 bomb group reunion, and went through this security. Oddly enough, they liked it. Since both have metal implants in either hips or knees, it saved them from a lengthy wanding session. As my mother said when I asked about the experience, "Hell, if they want to see an old lady's body, they're welcome to have a look at mine. I hate the whole wanding thing."

Not everyone is bothered. In fact, most people aren't bothered. In reality, it seems an easier way to check for dangerous stuff than the older methods.

Seeya.

[wtmusic]

4. "Of course"?

You act as though the sky's the limit just because you're stepping on an airplane.

What about background checks? Body cavity searches? Doubt if your mom would be so keen on one of those.

[MineralMan]

6. If you think the TSA security screenings are unconstitutional,

here's what you do:

1. Book a flight from an airport that uses this technology.
2. Show up on the day of the flight.
3. Refuse the screening.
4. Get denied boarding.
5. File a suit in your local district court.
6. Follow through until it reaches the SCOTUS.

That's how you discover if something is unconstitutional. As far as I know, nobody's done it so far, so you could make history.

[wtmusic]

11. Actually, whether something is unconstitutional is a matter of opinion.

Hence the poll. I didn't ask whether it would be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

The devil is in the details.

[MineralMan]

16. The SCOTUS is specifically charged in the Constitution to

settle all constitutional questions. The only final arbiter of whether something is constitutional or not is the SCOTUS. You can read all about it in the document you keep referencing. The SCOTUS is constitutional.

[wtmusic]

17. In that case you agree with every SCOTUS decision.

I don't share your unwavering faith.

[MineralMan]

22. Whether I personally agree with every SCOTUS decision is

irrelevant. According to the Constitution, that body is the sole and final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional. I can agree with their decisions or disagree with them. In some cases, the SCOTUS has reversed earlier decisions, changing the constitutionality of one thing or another. However, when a SCOTUS decision regarding constitutionality is rendered, it is the last word unless the SCOTUS later changes it.

You're conflating a constitutional question with whether something is right or wrong. The Constitution itself contains language making the SCOTUS the only and final arbiter of constitutional questions. If you don't think that is true, I suggest a re-reading of the document.

Now, the question you asked in your poll was whether something was Constitutional or not. I said that it was, since no case has been presented and deemed otherwise. I even provided you a way to test the constitutionality of the issue you raised.

Your opinion has nothing to do with actual constitutionality. It's just your opinion. The Constitution, itself, says how such questions are answered.

[wtmusic]

28. Everything is constitutional until it's been ruled not so?

Now, the question you asked in your poll was whether something was Constitutional or not. I said that it was, since no case has been presented and deemed otherwise.

I don't even need to point out the obvious fallacy in this rationale. And since this hasn't been ruled on, it's obvious that the question was one of opinion. I'll make it clearer for you: "Do you feel that full body scans are in violation of the principles embodied in the Constitution?". Or better: "If you were in SCOTUS, how would you rule on this issue?"

I've never gotten close to the issue of whether it's right or wrong. It's you who is conflating my question with a moral one.

[flamingdem]

20. At their age they have less to fear from ionizing radiation and cancer nt

[MineralMan]

23. I see. Well, if you're concerned with that, you can opt for the

pat-down and avoid that. I'd stay out of dental offices, though.

[flamingdem]

24. As I wrote elsewhere I was pushed into one of these machines.

Scientists are raising concerns about skin cancer. Have you googled to find out about this?

[MineralMan]

25. Sunshine is a much more dangerous source of ionizing radiation.

You are entitled to opt out of that screening and be patted down. I suggest you do that if it is a concern for you. Me? I'll be walking through those scanners in December. :shrug:

[flamingdem]

29. Radiation is cumulative, I've had enough, everyone takes their chances

Plus, a close family member got cancer from x-ray treatments so it can happen. Dental aren't as bad because it's just the head, backscatter is the whole body and most important who knows if the machines are calibrated and the skill of the operator.

[NightWatcher]

2. how about "unnecessary" or "little more than a gift to security contractor corpos"

"Security" and "Intel" are no longer the goal of the Security sector. It's all about selling a product.

[KeepItReal]

12. +1

Follow the money.

[NightWatcher]

18. did you see Wash Po's "Top Secret America" Project?

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/

[biermeister]

27. that's not very nice :)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/02/group_slams_chertoff_on_scanner_promotion/

[Jim__]

3. The question came up in, I think, the early 70s when they started doing airport searches.

I believe the reasoning (I'm not sure this ever actually went to court) was that flying is a choice. So, you are not being forced to be searched, you are consenting to being searched.

[KamaAina]

5. It isn't really a choice if you're going to Hawai'i

or, for that matter, Alaska, now that they've tightened up on crossing into Canada. And the Constitution does give citizens of the U.S. the right to "travel between the several States".

[MineralMan]

9. There are regularly-scheduled cruise ships to Hawaii. Drive to

the debarkation port and get on board. To go to Alaska, drive to Washington, board a ferry, and enjoy the trip up the coast. Bon Voyage!

[MilesColtrane]

7. Not in my opinion.

There is still an overall reasonable expectation of privacy in having your nude body photographed. (This is certainly arguable and may be a changing societal opinion.)

That defines the procedure as a search under the 4th amendment.

If the scanning is being conducted by the federal government (TSA) and not a private company it is a constitutional violation

[TheKentuckian]

8. Unreasonable search and therefore unConstitutional. MIC shitbags and corporate toadies have been

selling out our civil liberties for their own purposes and profits while butchering the intent of the Constitution.
Random stops and searches are criminal violations of our rights and should not be tolerated by free people.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. There is a fine line between keeping people safe and keeping them in line...

I see the scans as a way to make the majority of Americans annoyed enough to feel the government is doing something about their safety. People with a lower tolerance for annoyance feel they are a pointless intrusion.

I think any SCOTUS test would find them reasonable.

[DFW]

13. The Talkin' TSA Blues is now recorded, video in progress!

Talking TSA Blues
©2010 by The Freedom Toast (reprinted here by permission)

I booked a little trip to the Florida Keys
A week of sun and a light sea breeze
Grabbed the wife and the luggage, we were on our way
But we didn’t reckon with the T S A!

Made the check-in counter in plenty of time,
Proceeded to the security line,
Took off my belt, took off my shoes,
And then I learned to sing the T S A blues.

They said I’m on a no-fly list
I might be a famous terrorist
Osama must be my best pal,
And I was Al Qaeda, ‘cause my name was Al.

They made me spit into a cup,
And that cleared the confusion up,
They couldn’t match my D N A,
So, “good bye sir, and have a nice day!”

We left to go and catch our plane,
Whispered, “these guys are insane!”
A uniform stopped us, hands on hips
Said, “We heard that! We read your lips!”

They called me bad, they called me wicked,
Demanded to know if I had liquid.
I said, “just five quarts of blood.”
“That’s over the limit, you’re busted, Bud!”

Now my poor wife began to cry,
She wondered if we’d ever fly.
A grim-faced man came up and said,
“We got to check you. Remove your head.”

I yelled that my head was not removable.
They said they’d let it go if that was provable.
My wife said, “This has gone too far,
“Forget the flight, let’s get the car.”

We got our stuff, and drove back home,
Said, “this looks good, no need to roam!”
Home, sweet home, and you know, what’s more,
No one felt us up on the way to the door.

They say it’s all for our security.
Their motives have the utmost purity,
But next time, if I’m free to choose,
Well, someone tell United the news,
‘Cause I’m walking, and that’s T S A blues!

[krabigirl]

14. Nope

[ProdigalJunkMail]

15. just ask for a pat-down... n/t

[stray cat]

19. nobody is making you fly

[wtmusic]

26. That's correct, and there are other lunch counters in Greensboro for black folk.

Another class of rights, but the right to safety vs the right to privacy isn't quite that simple either.

[stray cat]

21. Only if screening passengers and luggage is unconstitutional