Posted this at Carlos Miller's PINAC site.
The 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Let me throw this in here as well...
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

So cited case law would indicate that no law or ruling can cancel out the 4th Amendment (part of the Constitution).

Every argument these Fatherland Security/TSA goons can make is cancelled out.

Another place where you can post comments countering the TSA apologists:

http://www.elliott.org/blog/tsa-watch-vote-for-your-favorite-tsa-hero-or-villain/

The last time I flew was a year ago before all this really got bad. I cannot believe they put hands in your hair, touch your breasts, etc. What is happening to our country?! Thankfully we have people like you who bring awareness that this is happening and that people like you don't just go with the flow and submit.

Jarvis is amusing sometimes, but often starts sentences better than he ends them.

Also, see this link.

Amy, that really is an awful thing to have to go through. I still find it hard to believe that this stuff goes on and people (not all, but many) act like its a normal, okay thing to do. It is NOT. It violates our rights. Many of our rights are being stomped into the ground. The people out there who think this makes us safe need to wake up. This should not be supported by anyone.

After we boarded, I read the Fourth Amendment aloud to Gregg from my Cato Institution copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Dr. Cos, I absolutely agree with you. This is terrible and dangerous and absolutely wrong, what's being done to us. Please, anyone who can, be vocal in your protest, whatever way you can, when going through this process. I didn't get to complain then about Gregg being told he couldn't photograph/videotape, but I will file a complaint when I'm home.

And Melody, you're absolutely right on this, and the reason it continues as it has is that people go quietly, they aren't up in arms about it, they believe (most naively) that government will protect them. What government is doing is priming us to be compliant sheep. One of the best things about Americans -- or what has been one of the best things -- has been what obnoxious, in-your-face people we've been about violations of our rights.

Now, I understand that not everyone has it in them to be vociferous at the TSA checkpoint, but people can write to congressmen, protest outside airports, help spread the word about people who do the more in-your-face protest. It's very, very, very important that we not let our rights be yanked from us, and certainly, not be all polite and smiling and compliant while it's happening.

Fight back -- in whatever way you can, and encourage others to do the same.

If you have a smart phone, download Cato's copy of the Constitution. It was free, I think, or maybe it was 99 cents or a dollar. You need to be very clear on what you're standing up for. Also, rereading it reminds me what a beautiful and brilliant and incredible document and incredible feat it was.

Here's, from the link Crid posted, from the comments there, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

This would sure seem to apply here. Again, it's like with a noisy bar in my neighborhood. Somebody has to complain, speak up, say something. The police can't do anything unless there's a complainant. Well, you can believe that describes me -- in protecting my sleep, first of all, and for sure, in protesting the yanking of our Constitutional rights.

Amy - I think you just got your lesbian cherry popped.

I mean, running her fingers through your hair? Did you at least get a kiss when she was done? I'd have asked.

Oh, and my solution, if you can call it that, is I drive. I didn't like flying before all this shit came down -- because I don't like strangers touching me.

And now a precondition for getting on the plane is letting strangers touch me? I'll pass.

http://cargocollective.com/4thamendment
These guys sell underwear and t-shirts printed in metallic ink. Text of 4th amendment showing up on the scanners.

Frank, the TSA responded swiftly when those metallic-print undies came out last year. Wearing those will get you pulled aside for a grope.

The fact that I need to fly home from a business trip in New Orleans is NOT probable cause.

These searches are noxious, wrong and ineffective. Anyone who loves his or her freedom should oppose them.

But probable cause is not the correct legal standard, as airport screenings are classified as administrative searches. Instead, the standard is whether the intrusivenenss of the search is "reasonable" given the government's interest in conducting the search. To you, me and a lot of others, these searches are clearly unreasonable. Unfortunately, courts give the government a great deal of latitude with respect to reasonableness, making it unlikely that they will be prohibited for being unlawful.

http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/111/2/Primus.pdf

Off-topic: Wired piece about a concept game that touches on all sorts of interesting aspects of the human psyche:

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/07/mf_chainworld/all/1

Instead, the standard is whether the intrusivenenss of the search is "reasonable" given the government's interest in conducting the search.

And that trumps the Constitution how? what is to stop a LEO from pulling me over and searching my car as an "administrative search"?

The hair thing was really disgusting. I'm a warm, huggy person with my friends, but I feel very uncomfortable and upset being touched by strangers. I jump if somebody puts their hand on my arm in the supermarket or somewhere. I was telling Gregg how upsetting the hair touching was on the way home. My closest friends -- people I love dearly -- have never touched my hair, and some broad with latex gloves on is pawing it? I feel physically disgusted by this and the rest of the groping and very violated. I'm still upset and still feel violated about the first time a TSA woman groped my breasts, at the Vegas airport, when I think they were trying out the scanners and gropings. This is no small thing, the government giving the finger to the Constitution and mandating that low-level employees (who surely couldn't pick Adam Gahahn out of a lineup -- I could) grope us in the name of safety and security. ("Safety" and "security" being the reality.)

I have to get work done on my column, but I'll post more about this encounter as soon as I can -- either today or tomorrow. There's another little power play at work that I think is meant to be punitive for the people selecting the groping rather than the scanner, and I'll write about that.

Note to IRA. Darth Aggie, you misunderstand the application and rules of probable cause. It applies to evidence used in court. It does nothing to either preempt or stop a search. It may, if the violation is grevious enough get any evidence derived from it thrown out of criminal (not civil) court as fruit of a poisonous tree.

And that trumps the Constitution how? what is to stop a LEO from pulling me over and searching my car as an "administrative search"?

To answer your first question:

It does not (necessarily). This is how the courts have interpreted the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures". That's why the emphasis on what is "reasonable" in these rulings.

And your second:

DUI checkpoints and the like are considered administrative searches, as are points where you enter court buildings, etc. You may be searched without probably cause at any of these.

Point of clarity: I'm not writing this because I endorse these interpretations of the Fourth Amendment, but because it's important to know where the law stands today. The law review article I linked above is a good summary, and isn't overly technical.

TSA admits to punishing travelers

by Charlie Leocha on August 24, 2010

http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/tsa-admits-to-punishing-travelers/

TSA punishes traveler for opting-out of scanner, then breaks laptop

http://www.everywhereist.com/dick-move-tsa-r-i-p-rands-laptop/

Texas Public Utility Commission chairman Barry Smitherman: "You're punishing me for opting out, aren't you?"

TSA agent: "Yes, we are."

http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/06/16/quote-of-the-day-after-texas-state-official-left-sore-from-a-tsa-patdown/

Texas Public Utility Commission chairman Barry Smitherman: "You're punishing me for opting out, aren't you?"

TSA agent: "Yes, we are."

http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/06/16/quote-of-the-day-after-texas-state-official-left-sore-from-a-tsa-patdown/

Also for Amy and the other non lawyers on this board. You are letting your emotions blind you to the legal realities.
When you fly, you have purchased a ticket with lots of fine print and conditions that most people never bother to read.
This ticket is a license to occupy space on an airline as long as you meet and continue to meet the conditions on that ticket.
What few constitutional rights you have as a passenger, you have voluntary waived, with the purchase of that ticket.

As I have said before, and will probably have to say again.

The only way to stop the TSA and the airlines, is to not buy the freakin ticket.

For those of you who say, you HAVE TO FLY. No you don't, anymore than you have to drive, take a bus or a boat or a bicyle.

You CHOOSE to fly, and the mere fact that flying is more convenient and cheap does not make it some sort of constitutionally protected right. The Supreme court is not going to side with you on this. Trust me.

> The only way to stop the TSA and the
> airlines, is to not buy the
> freakin ticket.

Your view of the corrupting forces is skewed.

I agree that people don't "have" to fly: I've been scolding Amy about locutions like that for years, as regards her trips to Europe vs. her ideas about environmentalism.

But under no circumstances should we accept the hair-brained, self-serving schemes of our government and its managers as the given lay of the land, something that we should have to put up with as a condition of the privilege of flying.

> You CHOOSE to fly, and the mere fact
> that flying is more convenient and cheap
> does not make it some sort of
> constitutionally protected right.

Balderdash.

> The Supreme court is not going to side
> with you on this.

Such a tribunal might shortly be shorn of its robes and excused from our chambers.

> Trust me.

No.

Isabel, I have stopped flying. My last flight was in September of 2010.

But as I've repeated countless times, not everyone can make that decision. Some people are forced to fly for work. They are between a rock and a hard place. Other people must fly because of illness -- treatment at a far-away hospital -- or because of family -- funeral far away. Etc.

While I have been urging an economic boycott of the airlines FOR THOSE OF US WHO CAN MAKE THIS DECISION for over 18 months, and while, yes, that would bring the airlines to their knees, I sympathize with people who can't refuse to fly. It's not a solution to tell them: "Don't fly."

We have to fight this, on however many fronts we can. There's not just one way to protest. There are many.

Dream On Crid..... :-)

Rights are rights, they are not removable by another party.

The government can ask me to give up my right to free speech, but my agreement to their request does not remove that right.

That is why the first 10 amendments on the constitution are called "The Bill of Rights", their violation and removal would invalidate the authority of our government.

Bravo, Robert! One of the pithier explanations I have read.

No, you guys! Trust Isabel!!!

The unwritten amendment to the Constitution reads:
=== ===
All of the principles here mean nothing if you give up your personal right to interpret this document in a plain and reasonable way. It means nothing if you do not vote out every politician who violates that plain meaning as you personally understand it. This document does not describe your right to demand aid from your fellow citizens, because this is not your right. This document limits your government to protecting you from the crimes of your fellow citizens and the actions of foreign peoples. And this document is dedicated to limiting the power of your politicians over you.
=== ===

Properly understood, the Constitution is a document for public understanding, not for detailed "interpretation" by a central authority. The public should refuse interpretations of the Constitution which allow seizing property to increase tax revenue (Kelo), which allow the government to take from A to give to B, to take over the conditions of travel (TSA), or which establish the "right" of people to have others pay for their healthcare or wellfare (Obamacare), enforced by the physical power and coercion of the state.

Vote out your masters and secure your actual rights while you still can.

I wonder how long until Isabell is writing this instead

Also for Amy and the other non lawyers on this board. You are letting your emotions blind you to the legal realities.

When you [Leave Your House], you have [Left Your House] with conditions that most people never bother to [Understand].

This [Leaving Your House] is a license to occupy space [In Public] as long as you meet and continue to meet the conditions [Of Being In Public].

What few constitutional rights you have as a [Person In Public], you have voluntary waived, with the [Leaving Of Your House].

As I have said before, and will probably have to say again.

The only way to stop the TSA, is to not [Leave Your House].

For those of you who say, you HAVE TO [Leave Your House]. No you don't, anymore than you have to [Work, or Buy Food, or Take Your Kids To School].

You CHOOSE to [Leave Your House], and the mere fact that [Leaving Your House] is more convenient [To Live Your Life] does not make it some sort of constitutionally protected right. The Supreme court is not going to side with you on this. Trust me.

Whoa, lujlp -- I salute you!

Lujip, nice logical argument, but not on point to constiutuional law as it has been interperted by the Supreme court. I, as Cristopher said, don't necessarily agree with the law, but I understand the difference between a ticket, and a licence to use a public conveyance, and your actual constitutional rights which are far fewer and more limited than most people understand them to be.
There are indeed circumstances where you can constitutionally be required to stay on your own property, or not to enter someone elses. After all we still have some private property rights in this country.
You can assume all you want as to what you think I might argue next based on my last post, but my last post was not an argument, it was a statement of fact and law. No need to get hysterical.

Now now Isabell. You yourelf just admited that your statemene was not and endorsement of an argument but a statment of current legal facts.

Likewise my question was a question, and not a statment, it could have been interperted as meaning how long until Isabel is writing this(because this is the new legal reality)?

I made no comment on you, your beleifs, or your emotional state. I dont think either of us was hysterical in our responses to each other - but yours is closer to being hysterical then mine

Crid, I am not asking for any kind of generalized trust. I should have been more clear. What I am asking you to trust me on is that there are no constitutional rights at stake here. You gave them mostly up when you bought that ticket and tacitly agreed to the terms and conditions that came with it. You can be patted down by the TSA, under the same rules that constitutionally allow the police to stop your car at a sobriety check point and check for signs of drunk driving. Go ahead, hold your breath till you turn blue. I am sure when the TSA is faced with that (and Amy's sobbing) the Supreme court will simply just cave, with tears in their eyes, and bang the gavel in your favor.

Christopher,
Where are these court rulings that have found these searches to be 'reasonable'??
And yes, we do have the 'right' to use air travel. When you buy a ticket you are entering a contract with a commercial operation. The government should have very limited say in what conditions they wish to impose for you to be able to receive the services you have paid for. This borders on interference with commerce, especially if you cross state lines.

Chew on that.

> What I am asking you to trust me on
> is that there are no constitutional
> rights at stake here.

I don't.

Same page now?

And even if I did, I'd think them to be a fractional part of events prompting a decision on these matters... The parameters of which are entirely imaginary at present.

I find your tone freakazoid-cynical. Weirdly dark.

Where are these court rulings that have found these searches to be 'reasonable'??

I've linked a law review article and mentioned it twice in my posts today. Being a law review article, it cites the relevant cases.

Or you could try this: http://tinyurl.com/3f85fxb

So, even non-TSA employees are perpetrating abuse. Gee, what a surprise. Couldn't see that coming! But what the hell. As long as no one else was "inconvenienced."

Malinda Knowles, 27, claims ... that a JetBlue supervisor put a walkie-talkie between her legs to see what she had on under her baggy T-shirt. "He said, 'I don't want to see your panties or anything but do you have any on?'" Knowles recalled yesterday. "I didn't want to show him anything. He wanted me to basically show him my crotch. I was completely humiliated. It was vulgar. It was macho. It was rude."
She said fellow passengers on the July 13, 2010, flight to West Palm Beach watched in horror as she was confronted . . .
She was taken to a hangar, where she lifted up her T-shirt to prove she met the dress code. "'Oh, she's wearing shorts,'" the JetBlue fashion police responded, according to Knowles.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/07/22/2011-07-22_airline_is_plane_vulgar_sez_suit_woman_in_long_baggy_tshirt_is_kicked_off_flight.html

Applause to Isabel and Christopher for bringing some sobriety to the TSA security issue. It's important to remember that simply citing to a Constitutional clause without context is a good way to get ignored.

Recent DC Cir case posted a big win for transparency (forcing TSA to publish proposed rules for comment), but a loss for backscatter opponents (xray "nudie" pix held reasonable). X-Ray health risks and pat-down intrusiveness ignored for now. Key fact to be determined lies in the potential health risk. Pat downs will continue to be held constitutional so long as the backscatter option is deemed "risk-free." Shed some contrary light on that assumption and now you're testing whether its reasonable for a passenger to be forced to choose between a carcinogen or a search of one's nether-regions.

Properly understood, the Constitution is a document for public understanding, not for detailed "interpretation" by a central authority.

Given 200+ years of jurisprudence vesting interpretation of the Constitution and our laws in the U.S. Supreme Court to the contrary (see Marbury v. Madison for the foundational case), that's a rather radical assertion.

Vote out your masters and secure your actual rights while you still can.

Yes, by all means, do!

Eh, 4th Amendment, Schmourth Amendment. What's a little unwarranted search and seizure? After all, it's not like we fought a war against that.

Never having flown besides in a Cessna, I can't speak to the argument.

What I would like someone to explain to me is why the TSA thinks groping passengers is a security measure?

It would be easier for someone to drive over the Canadian border with a car load of explosives. Cheaper, less risky, and lesser penalties if you get caught.

Wouldn't increasing border security be more effective?

Nice little history of Administrative searches and the 4th Amendment. http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-the-tsa-legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/

Angel, CBP has even more power than the TSA. Unlike TSA, they are law enforcement. They do their share of abusive power-tripping, too. I take those guys deadly seriously.

Applause to Isabel and Christopher for bringing some sobriety to the TSA security issue.

Yes, thank god for sycophants, boot lickers, and quislings. Where would we be without them jusifying our getting stabbed in the back?

And a challange for you resigned to governemnt molestaion who read snakemans article.

Expain how a pair of human hands quailifes as unobtrusive technology under the rational used to justify 'administrative searches'

And for those of you who can answer that please explain how human hands are BETTER at detecting explosives and weapons then metal detectors, dogs, and senors designed to detect tace elements of explosive compounds?

Amy had to have her hair fondled for us to feel safe. And remember, the TSA/LA cops let Nigerian-American Olajide Oluwaseun Noibi fly for free across the country and not be arrested, well at least not the first few times anyway. You're safe, fly the friendly feely skies today!

Just consider it a free phrenology exam, part of Obamacare! See, national healthcare can work!

Lujlp, those hands are better at planting evidence to get reasonable suspicion for a full search, duh!

Terrific comment by "Talbot" here:

I don't see what is terrific about it, unless you think that the way forward is shown by pretending that our entire body of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence doesn't exist. I don't.

Yes, thank god for sycophants, boot lickers, and quislings. Where would we be without them jusifying our getting stabbed in the back?

I'm none of the above. I'm strongly opposed to what the TSA is doing – I think it's both wrong and ineffective, and have been entirely clear about that.

I also think that those who look to a literalist interpretation of the Fourth Amendment as a way to oppose what the TSA is doing are bound to fail. Our legal system relies heavily on precedent, and it's vanishingly unlikely that courts are going to start disregarding the may precedents that have paved the way to where we are now. The courts, which since the end of the Warren court have become increasingly deferential to power and law enforcement, are not likely to be the solution.

The solution now is almost certainly going to be political. That's the arena where people have greatest ability to change the direction we are headed. The likeliest way things are changing is by voting in dedicated civil libertarians.

> The solution now is almost certainly
> going to be political.

Point taken. Two things:

[1.] People shouldn't be so crazy-cynical about support from the courts. There are lefties in robes out there.. I *seen* 'em! Some of them are obsessed with liberty in personal deportment.

I know, I know you're probably right and all, I just think the cynicism is over-the-top. So where does it come from?

[2.] Consider gay marriage and any number of other issues in recent history... People think the courts are a political solution! Ever since the defeat of the ERA, people have resented having to corral votes, forge alliances, and... Y'know, persuade people of stuff.

Now, I'm a dark, bitter, cynical guy. But you can't be cynical about all things and all times. If you are, you're neither a champion of the Republic nor and agent of decency... You're just a person who wants to pout and be right about things.

Lisa S,

You want abuse of power? Try the OPP and RCMP! Google them with the term "abuse of power". See how many results pop up.

At least the TSA can't beat or tase you to death, unlike the RCMP. Ooops, that doesn't count, he was a crazy person!

The whole damn system is corrupt, American, Canadian, or Portugese!

At least the TSA can't beat or tase you to death, unlike the RCMP.

Thats because the work in an area covered by recording servalince cameras. Sure sure they refuse to relaes any of those tapes, but if the TSA ever did kill someone they'd be forced to cough em up

That's the stupid thing lujlp, they WERE taped, the tapes went public, and they GOT OFF!!!

The reason? He was a crazy person, and he made "threatening gestures" towards the officers in question.

Ummmm....if you're a crazy person, calm and serene aren't exactly orders of the day.

Or how bout Stacey Kelly, the Ottawa woman who was taped as she got a concussion beat into her because she was drunk and "known to police?"

I can keep going....

People shouldn't be so crazy-cynical about support from the courts. There are lefties in robes out there.

I'm not entirely cynical. There are both conservative and liberal judges whose rulings support civil liberties. I just don't think they have a strong position, even on the 9th circuit.

People think the courts are a political solution! Ever since the defeat of the ERA, people have resented having to corral votes, forge alliances, and... Y'know, persuade people of stuff.

Courts most often follow, not lead public opinion (yes, I'm aware of exceptions). I think that the way to win on this issue is to effectively make the public case – to persuade people on the issue. Civil libertarians are currently not succeeding at this when it comes to airport searches. Persuade the people and the politicians and courts will follow.

I also think a political solution is the way to go. It's going to take longer -- look how long the civil rights movement took to get results. The bus boycotts alone went on for over 400 days. And that was just one prong in the battle (although a good example of how effective economic boycotts can be, if only people are willing to put up with some inconvenience and sacrifice, which too many Americans aren't willing to do in this case).

But as more people feel the wrath of the TSA and can't stick their heads in the sand anymore, we'll gain support. We'll win this, one grope at a time.

Did you feel that way about GM? Or abortion?
Or lightbulbs, even? Just curious.

Crid, are you asking those questions of me or of all of us in general?

If me, it's not that I think the courts can't help or haven't helped on issues of social justice. It's that I think in this instance, the hoi polloi are going to have to rise up and demand change. I agree with whoever said further up the thread that the courts, increasingly, are siding with the powers-that-be when it comes to "administrative" searches and civil liberties.

As I've said before, we have to fight this thing on many fronts, not just one.

Oh, and forgot to reiterate: I think civil disobedience is a tremendously powerful tool. It takes courage, and it takes people willing to go to jail, but it works. Sooner or later, it will be used against the TSA and the whole oppressive, soul-sucking security state apparatus.

Anybody... IJS

If the Southwest Airlines revolution hadn't happened... If it weren't the sweatpants-wearing crowd who were buying discount airline tickets like bus passes, I think this wouldn't be happening. The cranky business travelers of yesteryear wouldn't have put up with this shit. But today, it's all ESL families, stoned to the gills on Starbucks & Cinnabon.

Crid, I wonder. I've talked to countless people who are business travelers, educated, upper-middle-class, blah blah blah, who are just as craven and subservient as anyone else.

Though now with this proposed "three-tier system" (if it ever comes to pass), where the rich will be able to practically bypass security while the great unwashed still get groped, who knows what will happen.

"I also think that those who look to a literalist interpretation of the Fourth Amendment as a way to oppose what the TSA is doing are bound to fail. Our legal system relies heavily on precedent, and it's vanishingly unlikely that courts are going to start disregarding the may precedents that have paved the way to where we are now. The courts, which since the end of the Warren court have become increasingly deferential to power and law enforcement, are not likely to be the solution. "

Christopher, I have to admit that your words trouble me, even though I accept the truth of them. Here's why. If a branch of government can rule that, in effect, "the Fourth Amendment doesn't actually mean what it says", then what additional words could possibly be placed in the Constitution that they would respect? If we pass a new Amendment reinforcing the Fourth, then courts could simply rule that the new Amendment doesn't mean what it says either. Given the near-impossibility of removing a Supreme Court justice, it appears that our only way forward from here is pitchforks and torches.

I personally think we should have spoke up, years ago. You know, when they started those DUI checkpoints.

Cat, I'd date it to before that. To the so-called war on drugs.

In any case, many of us have been speaking out about civil liberties violations for a long time.

Related to this discussion:

". . . Through careful reflection proving that there are other ways of maintaining order than merely through more rules and regulations. That increasing the social trust, in a society that already enjoys amongst the highest levels of social trust in the world, is a more rewarding option . . .
Even more interesting, perhaps, there hasn't even been a public outcry for more security for the politicians to address. No opposition politicians, not even social media voices, have demanded more public security or pointed to the lack thereof as potential discouragements to the attacks.
The first aid kit for social renewal has been commonly accepted as more openness, more democratic involvement, more transparency, less speculative rhetoric, less suspicion. Everything the attacker opposed.
. . . our mindset of staying calm and carrying on."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/eirik-bergesen/norway-is-passing-the-tes_b_908008.html

I guess that's what it's like to live in a mature, rational country.

Do people 'need' to fly?

Sometimes. But that isn't the issue either way.
The federal government isn't providing those planes.

The issue is whether any single action abrogates your constitutional rights.

Can they search anybody at any time? If they can pick one form of transportation and say yes...why not any?