And you have what grounds exactly for believing that they are going to go to this extreme? Scaremongering and pointless speculation.

After all, this may well be the next step

That phrase, "it may be" is doing an awful lot of work in there.Or it may not be.

They never grope and strip obese people. Why is that?

Since flying is not a Constitutionally protected right, there is nothing to be done about this. Give it up.

"Since flying is not a Constitutionally protected right, there is nothing to be done about this. Give it up."

Since gay marriage is not a Constitutionally-protected right, there is nothing to be done. Give it up.

Oh, yeah. That's always the best course when injustice is done.

Good job.

There is something to be done-it's called fight it! We just flew with the fam, and we were waved into the Xray without a blink by TSA. Had we not been, we would not have been on our flight. Neither myself nor my kids will be patted down or radiated. If for no other reason on God's green earth, than for the fact that it's a violation of our rights and inconvenience can't stop us from fighting that. All it would take is one day of every person flying to refuse to do either, and this nonsense would be done. One day. But people can't be bothered.

Since flying is not a Constitutionally protected right, there is nothing to be done about this. Give it up. -- Patrick at January 24, 2012 4:16 PM

The Right To Travel:

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

The right to travel is not Constitutionally guaranteed, but is assumed. Just like the right to privacy is not explicitly written out but is implicitly understood in the 4th and 5th.

I would have no problem with reasonable checks. But the TSA was not needed one hour and one minute after the attack on Tower II. If it was look at the 9/11 timeline and explain how, and why, Flight 93 went down without having the TSA around.

And cue that NOFX song.

Close, but no cigar, Jim P. The right to travel does not equate to the right to fly. There are alternative means of travel. If you don't like TSA, your alternative is to buy a van. Perhaps if enough people boycott the airlines, then they will get the idea that TSA sucks. But if you want to claim it's a violation of the fourth amendment, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Airlines are private industries.

Look at it this way. If I wanted to require everyone who enters my home to pass through a TSA scanner, I can do that. It's private property and I can have whatever I want in place. Your option is not to visit me if that bothers you.

NOW HEAR THIS! TSA IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL! THAT IS ALL!"

And Radwaste, not even. The constitutionality of the right of gays to marry is currently being challenged, since SCOTUS ruled in Loving v Virginia that we do have the right to marry.

Not a constitutionally protected right? You don't know that, now do you?

Slight problem is that airports arent private property, also the TSA is not in airports by invitation by the airlines and the states but by federal decree

Also tyravel by automobile isnt constitutionally gaurenteed either. Comming soon to every freeway on ramp near you a TSA checkpoint

Patrick, the point is that "giving up" is no answer.

In case you haven't inferred this from my other arguments, I support any declaration you might make to another person that you would honor and obey them until death do you part, and I don't care what gender that person is.

Our "Right" to Travel is considered a basic HUMAN right, according to the United Nations. It's not only a Constitutional right.
Some people speak of "flying" and "travelling" in the same sense, but they're not. A Pilot flies the airplane, but the passengers are Travellers. They might as well be aboard a bus or a train. TSA is already setting shop in train stations and bus depots. Just making sure...

I just found this again - and I'm amazed that anyone would think that their travel should be subject to government restrictions, so long as they can marry who they want.

Can't go anywhere without being searched, that's OK.

That's a nitwit.