Monday, November 22, 2010

Not Sure Where I Saw This...

But if, as the Obama Administration claims, it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for Arizona police officers to ask a person that they have already stopped for evidence that they are legally in the United States, why isn't it a violation of the Fourth Amendment to do an invasive search of a person's intimate parts to get on an airliner?  I can see a principled argument (in an extreme sort of way) for both arguments.  I can see a pragmatic argument against both arguments.  But why is Arizona's law so terrible--while the far more invasive searches being done by TSA are okay?


  1. > But why is Arizona's law so
    > terrible--while the far more invasive
    > searches being done by TSA are okay?

    Because the Right People make money from the TSA scans and searches, but not from the Arizona law.

  2. Because the airport searches are most certainly of innocent people. That an actual illegal immigrant might be asked about their immigration status is too much to bear. Our government has no problem with violating the rights of innocent people. It's only concerned with violating the rights of the guilty.

  3. My suspicion, if they had to make a case, is that they'd claim the TSA searches are "okay" because they're voluntary.

    And they are, in that you can't be forced to enter an airport with a ticket and get in line by the state.

    I'm not a fan of the TSA's policies (or even its existence), and I don't see any problem with the Arizona law, but that argument has a certain resonance even with me.

  4. Answer is simple: THE ART OF WORD.

    Example..Liberty v/ Civil Liberty.

    Liberty in the Declaration of Independence is not Civil Liberty, yet the Legal Profession twists the meaning in an artful way to lead one to believe that they are the same.

    If Mr. Holder is concerned that the State of Arizona is overstepping the Constitution on Federal Immigration clearance, then I would like to know why it is ok for the local Police, Sheriffs and State Troopers to pursue BANK ROBBERS if the CRIME is FEDERAL? Why are BANK ROBBERS tried in State Court if the CRIME is FEDERAL?

    Another example would be one of my favorites mentioned in the Constitution: POST ROADS (thank God for Mr Franklin).

    I mention this for the RIGHT TO TRAVEL. One of the oddities of the POST ROAD is you must give way (yield) to the the Business of and for the Post. (If you run out of ways to research this, then dive into the Court of Inns.) In so much as the Post is now carried by Common Carriers (Airlines) then the Federal Government has the Right to Inspect whatever they want that Travels with the Conveyance of the Post.

    Now Clayton, the next time you go to the Post Office try to find the POST that Mr. Franklin was referring to (I will give you a hint and tell you that it is the place where the NOTICE of the Governments Business is nailed to a POST).

  5. In a general sense, everyone has a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures - hence, the argument against Arizona.

    However, no one has a constitutional right to board a commercial aircraft and fly from Point A to Point B. As a result, it is argued that gov't agencies can act in airports in a manner that street cops cannot.

    Not saying it's right - but that is the legal basis, as I say, in a general sense.

  6. Sigivald: nor can Mexicans be forced to cross the border, where they'll be subject to law-enforcement searches. So again, what's the actual difference?