Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="donner" data-source="post: 3944766" data-attributes="member: 277">But that is the point i made, if you want past the point you agree to waive your right to the TSA searching you. It ceases to be 'unreasonable' since you voluntarily agree to it. They have no obligation (even as the government) to let you go past a point. If you want past then they can set the terms. That isn't an infringement of your rights because you have no right to be in that area in the first place. Your reading of the Constitution is very (too?) literal and i can't recall too many instances where any court has refused to acknowledge the limitations of an amendment to apply to all situations (though i admit it's been a while since i took my con law classes). Slander and Liable laws comes to mind. They are meant to give a person recourse against harmful speech (albeit non criminal), but also are weighed against the 'truth'. By your logic earlier, the first amendment would allow for the leaking of classified materials (like troop movement, launch codes and anything else). It'd put laws that protect state secrets in direct violation, regardless of the potential for harm. Same for threats, etc. Courts have routinely used strict scrutiny tests to distinguish between political speech and threats and other forms of speech that can be linked to the possibility of direct harm. Your stance reminds me of a video i came across recently regarding a guy who thought the agricultural inspections in California were a violation of his 4th amendment right. I'm also certain this video will trigger you, though, so be warned.  [MEDIA=youtube]3YARMZsFFCM[/MEDIA]</blockquote>

Verification