Exactly, Personally I believe the "Trusted Traveler" program should be unconstitutional on is face, every citizen should be a "trust traveler" until such time the government as a clear and articulable reason to consider them a safety risk, at which point it should enter into some kind of Administrative or Court process where I person can defend themselves against set accusations
Treating everyone as a Terrorist, then "clearing" some people that choose to pay the government money, and go through their privacy invading process should be Unconstitutional and abhorrent to all free people
The typical screening does not treat everyone as a terrorist. After all, the US has a no-fly list. That list, of course, comes with its own host of issues, but let’s be more precise.
Airport screening sucks and is theater. Global Entry is extortion. No doubt. But current screening measures are not unconstitutional.
>But current screening measures are not unconstitutional.
That really depends on what nine partisans in fancy robes think, a group whose makeup changes over time and who can change their minds.
I think what GP was getting at is that it seems so fundamentally unjust that it should be unconstitutional (which is what anyone who is not a constitutional law scholar means when they say unconstitutional), not a claim about legal opinions of powerful judges.
There isn't much of an articulable case for these rules to be unconstitutional. It's not analogous to freedoms people have in their personal life.
They're using the Federal aviation system, public property airports, being routed by the FAA, and so on. It's much more analogous to requirements for auto safety and licensing.
The government can't mandate the color of your shirt in your own home, but they can mandate the exact shade of your turn signals when you're on public roads.
I'm not a fan of our current security state, it's insane. But air travel isn't a private act, it's important to calibrate the conversation to the issue actually at hand.
I’ll jump in here. I believe the constitution does provide a right to travel both domestically and internationally.
When I choose flight as my mode of transport, and I choose to do business with a private company, (entering into a private contract with that company to convey my body from one location to another), I believe the government demanding that I be searched and inspected and scanned in order to allow the private company and I to conduct our private business of providing me with transportation is unconstitutional. The federal government does not have an affirmative grant of power over my right to travel, and two because I have the right to travel. All powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people.
I feel like this fallacy that travel is a privilege comes from the whole “driving is a privilege” concept. But keep in mind, while driving is a privilege (under STATE law), riding isn’t a privilege, it’s a right. I may need the blessing of a STATE government to drive a car across state lines, but I don’t need the blessing of state or federal government to ride as a passenger in a vehicle across state lines. In the case of the flight, I’m not engaged in a regulated activity of flying a plane, I’m merely a citizen exercising their right to travel.
Sure there is, I'll articulate one: the federal government is giving preferential treatment to people who waive their constitutional privacy rights (and pay money) and going out of its way to intentionally inconvenience those who don't pay up and give up their rights. The government giving explicit preferential treatment to people who waive their constitutional rights and punishing those who don't is a clear violation of citizens' constitutional rights: if the government can do whatever it wants to make you miserable until you waive your rights, you don't really have them.
It's analogous to a state government monitoring citizens' speech, picking out anyone who criticizes the governor's political party, and banning them from using the freeway.
Would my argument pass legal muster? No, I'm not a lawyer and I thought of it in 3 minutes on a Friday afternoon. Is it articulable? Yes. Could the court rule in my favor if it were explained better by someone with esquire at the end of their name? Sure. Judges often accept or make any argument they like no matter how bad so long as it fits in with their political ideology.
>> It's much more analogous to requirements for auto safety and licensing.
There are clear constitutional Bounders here, a Police Officer can not simply pull you over, search you, question you, and detain you with out a clear articuable reason to believe you have or are about to violate the law in some way.
We have no destroyed the 4th amendment to that point yet, but I know people like you continue to try.
>> But air travel isn't a private act,
People like me believe it should be, No Public Airports, not Public anything. It should be a private transaction where me a Private citizen contract with a Private company to transport me from A to B,
Using high Intensity EM Waves to peer under my clothes, invasive pat Downs, Making me remove Clothing, limiting my ability to carry liquids, and about 100 other policies feels like I am being treated like a Terrorist or Safety Risk or Criminal.
Certainly does not feel like I am treated with Respect, Dignity, and civility that a Free Society should offer its inhabitants as they peacefully travel from point a to point b
I shutter to think what you believe would be unacceptable or "being treated like a terrorist"
>>>> But current screening measures are not unconstitutional.
Only if you skip over and do not read the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th , 10th, 14th Amendments, and Article 1 Section 8
Not sure why you believe that distinction matters, the fact that is not harmful is irrelevant to my statement. I am more concerned about the Privacy implications, and the precedent it sets than I am health effects
The Government going through my underwear drawer does not physically harm me that does not mean I want to consent or be forced to allow them to search it.
As a former resident and frequent visitor to the US, I find it a disturbing trend that more and more government services are segregated into an unpleasant "basic" level of service and a "premium" level of services charging extra fees. This happens for airport screenings, for passport applications, for visas.
Subjectively, it feels to me like in most other countries I live or visit, if a government service is bad, the go to strategy is to try to improve it for everybody. In the US, the go to strategy is to create a separate line for "premium" customers so they get reasonable service instead of having to wait in line with hoi polloi.
I'm not sure I agree. The fact that there is a fee applied to Nexus (when you're a citizen) and other things is the issue. I have no problem that if people want expedited routing through customs they have to get background checks and do additional paperwork. It's just bullshit that we charge for it. I had to do FBI and local police BG checks as part of my emigration to Canada. It wasn't like it was onerous or hard. In fact, the medical check was far more expensive and inconvenient.
