OK, this one is angry.
First, who can tell me where this quotation is from?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
Anyone?
Well, a few weeks back, I was standing around, minding my own business, in a peaceable assembly of people (that's a hint, if you haven't gotten the reference yet), when up come a collection of duly appointed representatives of our government, and they frisked basically everyone.
If you don't know the reference yet, (a) it's the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, and (b) get familiar with the Constitution.
So, what was I doing that made the government think they could reasonably search my person? That's right, I had committed the incredible crime of "standing in an airport."
No. This was not at the security station. I had already passed through that area, and been forced to take off my shoes, and separate out my liquids (not that I bring any, any more), and pass through a metal detector (not really an issue), and had completed that little trial without incident.
I was waiting for my plane at the gate with about 100 other folks (it wasn't a full flight), traveling from Austin back to Phoenix.
This practice does nothing to protect me from terrorists.
What it does is get me used to living in a police state where my Constitutional rights mean exactly dick.
The Executive Branch is charged with enforcing the laws. Tell me, President Obama, why aren't you enforcing the 4th Amendment? Yes, the oath got screwed up at your swearing in ceremony. But I hear you went back and did it properly later, which says to me that you are at least partially aware of the Constitution and the rights it guarantees to the people.
So tell me. Were these duly appointed representatives of your government breaking the law? Or is "standing in an airport" now a crime? Because if situational proximity is basically grounds for search and seizure, that's a damn slippery slope.
Recent Comments