I don't think a pat down is an unreasonable General Welfare security measure before boarding an aircraft. I've never been "raped" by one but maybe [MENTION=25558]cjm[/MENTION] can elaborate on that since he opts out every time. I'm not aware of any finger scans being required of all passengers as a condition of flying. Do you have info on that?
Rights are not subject to a "some jackass think's it's reasonable" test.
You probably aren't attractive enough for some TSA agent to want to hand rape you. There have definitely been attractive women who have claimed that they seem to get picked for the pat down more often than not. Also the point about the finger scans clearly went over your head, though I don't know why. You are given a "choice."
Edit: And here is a story where TSA agents
admitted they selected attractive women for pat downs so they could feel them up. But I guess that's okay for the "general welfare."
https://www.thesun.ie/travel/129699...-and-middle-eastern-passengers-for-pat-downs/
1) Get the rapescan.
2) Get the pat down.
3) Do the trusted traveller program which involves getting finger scanned.
And here is the information about the finger scanning part of the program. I don't have to ask [MENTION=25558]cjm[/MENTION] about it. I can just read about it from the official government website.
At airports, program members proceed to Global Entry kiosks, present their machine-readable passport or U.S. permanent resident card, place their fingerprints on the scanner for fingerprint verification and complete a customs declaration. The kiosk issues the traveler a transaction receipt and directs the traveler to baggage claim and the exit.
I'm sure next vaccine verification will be added to "trusted traveler."
That's the difference I guess. I think some reasonable security measures to ensure one person can't kill 300 others with one solitary action are reasonably acceptable under General Welfare.
Yeah, your lack of knowledge about what really happened with 9/11 and other terror attacks is the difference. The CIA purposefully let many of the hijackers in from Saudi Arabia. The "underwear bomber's" father told the U.S. government before his son got on the plane that he thought his son was a terrorist. The Obama administration had to admit before the senate that they were tracking him before he got on the plane and they let him on anyway. There was an FBI informant that built the bomb that damaged the World Trade Center in 1993. If you don't understand that then any violations of your civil liberties seems "reasonable." Hell, using your "logic" it's perfectly reasonable to bar people from flying who haven't been vaccinated because
maybe the measure
might save lives. So why are you playing dishonest games and pretending that the "alternatives" make the unconstitutional constitutional when you would be just as fine with a single measure that nobody could opt out of because it's "reasonable" to "save lives?"
No one said exercising rights would always be easy. In fact, the Founders warned that eventually it wouldn't be. .....if you can keep it......
Accepting unnecessary and unconstitutional pat downs is NOT exercising rights! You are doing the opposite of what the founders did. While the rest of us are trying to see how we can fight this latest intrusion on our rights, you are busy making excuses for the intrusion on our rights by saying "Well you can opt for a pat down and I don't think it's so bad." Most people would rather be rapescanned then patted down. They consider it more "reasonable." It certainly takes less time. Rolling over and accepting whatever new imposition the government comes up with to "save lives" when it's the same government actors that are causing the problem in the first place is not "exercising rights." It's bending over and asking if they'll use Vaseline this time.
Freedom of association (how can you associate if travel is restricted?) and ironically, the Commerce Clause, plus courts have always upheld that freedom of movement is a guaranteed right.
Even some outfit named Bloomberg Law (
the Bloomberg?) recognizes it.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-la...titutionally-protected-freedom-of-movement-44
Freedom of association is not spelled out in the Bill Of Rights. Question. Have you ever actually sat down and read the Bill Of Rights? The First Amendment guarantees the right of the people to peaceably assemble. You don't have to be able to fly to peaceably assemble. In fact you don't have to fly to be able to travel. Using your stupid "You still have a right as long as you have an alternative" argument, there's no reason people should have a right to fly since they can always drive. And since the creation of the "no fly" list, your right to fly has been effectively suspended because you can be put on a no fly list without due process.
