Former TSA Admin Admits They're Violating The 4th Amendment

[88GT]

I don't really see how announcing or advertising the government searches makes any difference. So lets say the government passes some crazy warrantless wiretapping law, and they announce it, hang signs up, run tv commercials, etc. Does it make it any more constitutional that we all know they are doing it?

What other industries are they allowed to take over? Railways? Boating? Highways? Segways? At what point do they say, 'You saw the signs. If you don't want to be searched, just walk,' or 'stay home.'

Absolutely!!!!!! It is a FEDERAL highway system, is it not? Would it be reasonable for every entrance ramp to a federal interstate highway system to have a security screening checkpoint of both driver and car? I think not. The airline industry is no different. The government has inserted itself in what should be private business dealings between consumers and airlines, and it has used that position to violate the restrictions held upon it with regards to the privacy/security (not safety) of the individual.

Maybe 'industry takeover' is the wrong way to describe it, more like fascist imposition of mandatory searches. What makes this unconstitutional is that the government has no authority to be in the checkpoint business at all, announced or not.

This is it right here in a nutshell. The airline industry isn't fundamentally different from any other means of transportation. We'd pitch a fit to make the latest rumblings against the TSA look like tea time conversation if the feds decided to act in similar fashion on the roads.

If you purchase a ticket for passage on a commercial airline, you effectively create a contract with the AIRLINE. One of the written stipulations to that contract (written on the ticket and apparently on the website as well) is that by that purchase, in exchange for the airline granting you passage on their plane, you agree among other things to pay for the ticket and to consent to a search of your person and belongings by the AIRLINE. There are also, at least according to what they tell you on the plane, federal laws requiring you to obey the orders of uniformed crew on the planes, not disable the smoke detectors in the bathroom, etc.

To restate only the salient point, by your purchase, you consent to a search by the AIRLINE.

FIFY. The government has no legal role in the searches. Period.

Flying on a plane is not a 4A violation. The unreasonableness of the search notwithstanding, if you consent to it by buying a ticket, it's no different than if every store owner makes a precondition to entering his store that you be wearing a pink tutu and a cowboy hat.

Does that store owner use the federal government to conduct the search? Or more appropriately, does the federal government insert itself in the private affairs of the business owner by requiring searches?

Different issue, Rambone. You own the vehicle. You do not own the plane. If you DO own the plane, you do not have to consent to a TSA search to fly in it. As for the grocery, are the government employees searching people entering the store or just walking by? If they are searching anyone entering, did the business owner have anything to do with them being there? If so, you have the right to deny him your business and shop elsewhere, and incidentally avoid the search as well. If they are searching people just walking by, that would be 4A, and the courts have already ruled against it, IIRC.

Where does the TSA get the authority to pick and choose which people are subject to searches? I think your argument is only valid if you're arguing the airlines has the authority and power to search.

Someone on here recently posted that the difference between rights and privileges is that you don't have to pay to have a right.

That would be me? And it had nothing to do with government control of private business to make an end-run around our rights.

Those warrantless searches to which you refer? They're already law, IF the officer who pulls you over can see something in plain sight or can show RAS or PC to search. Is it right? No. Does it exist? Unquestionably. Since you purchase the privilege of flying on their airplane, you agree to follow the conditions made available to you at the time of purchase. If you do not, you have a choice to not fly.

Then why is the federal government not subject to the same standards for flying?

No one is forcing you to fly.

We're not talking about flying vs. some other mode of transportation. We're talking about government intrusion in private business transaction and their claim to a power to violate an individual's right.

Purchase of an airline ticket only purchases the privilege of travel in that seat for the duration of that specific flight. A violation would occur if you complied with all of the conditions and they still both denied you passage and refused to refund your payment. This would probably be addressable under "breach of contract". It would still not be unConstitutional, it would instead be a (civil) tort action.

I'm still trying to figure out how the federal government plays a role in this. We're not entering federal property. Our agreement via ticket purchase is not with the federal government.

Further, let's turn this around. Let's just say for a moment that you, Rambone, own an airline. You've invested significant amounts of money into it (a minimum of 8 figures, and the first one is probably not less than 5), and while it's insured, you don't want to have any of your planes at risk.

QUESTION:

Do you, as a business owner, have a right to decide what types of security to impose on those you will be allowing passage on your aircraft? Regardless of what you would impose, I'm asking if you have the right to make decisions regarding your property?

If you answer yes, you do have that right, you've just ended your argument against the major airlines doing the same thing. If you answer that you do not have that right, you've claimed you do not have property rights as a free American.

So.... unless your claim is that you would have that right but the major airline owners do not, I don't see how this discussion can continue, though I'm certainly not averse to it continuing. I'll be looking forward to seeing your reply though, regardless.

That might be the first time I've seen you use a straw man. This isn't about private property rights, Bill. This isn't about the AIRLINES requiring searches. I'm sure that every last one claiming that the searches by the TSA are unconstitutional would agree that such searches demanded by and performed by the airlines are not. But it's not the airlines requiring it, and it's not the airlines doing it. TSA employees are agents of the federal government which makes their search of an individual private property in regards to a private deal without probable cause or warrant ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!

With this, I agree with you. I think the TSA is a huge government overreach, and they are not authorized by the Constitution to do it. It's not, however, an illegal search.

It's like if the government nationalized bowling alleys. If you bowl, you must be searched. The search isn't the issue, because you consent to that by bowling. The nationalization of the bowling alley was the unconstitutional part.

Poisoned fruit. Isn't that the legal term? If the authority to conduct the search is claimed through unconstitutional action, is not the search unconstitutional also?

*****
I'd also like to know if there isn't some sort of violation of equal protection here. If not in the letter of the law, at least in spirit. That all flights are not equally screened just screams how wrong this whole issue is because it illustrates all the points I've been making about the intrusion of government into a private business affair and the complete lack of authority/jurisdiction to conduct these searches. Top it off with the fact that there are exempted classes, both officially and unofficially, and I don't see how anyone can argue with a straight face that there's any semblance of legality in these searches.

 

[rambone]

Further, let's turn this around. Let's just say for a moment that you, Rambone, own an airline. You've invested significant amounts of money into it (a minimum of 8 figures, and the first one is probably not less than 5), and while it's insured, you don't want to have any of your planes at risk.

QUESTION:

Do you, as a business owner, have a right to decide what types of security to impose on those you will be allowing passage on your aircraft? Regardless of what you would impose, I'm asking if you have the right to make decisions regarding your property?

If you answer yes, you do have that right, you've just ended your argument against the major airlines doing the same thing. If you answer that you do not have that right, you've claimed you do not have property rights as a free American.

So.... unless your claim is that you would have that right but the major airline owners do not, I don't see how this discussion can continue, though I'm certainly not averse to it continuing. I'll be looking forward to seeing your reply though, regardless.

If I own Rambone Airlines, I can hire private contractors to handle my security. Private security by definition cannot violate people's "rights", and if customers feel that security is too strict or too lax, the can choose not to patronize my business.

If government forces its way into an industry by fiat, and declares that any customers who wish to complete the transaction they already paid for, must submit to their police searches, I think that is something very different entirely. Since searches [by government] without probable cause or a warrant are illegal, so too are the TSA checkpoints. I think there is a case that the TSA breaks the 2nd, 4th, 9th, & 10th amendments.

If you answer yes, you do have that right, you've just ended your argument against the major airlines doing the same thing.

So my answer is yes. However, government is the thing in question, not the major airlines with their non-existent private security.

 

[Randall Flagg]

I'm going to have to agree with 88 on this, you entered a contract with the airlines, if they want to search you, so be it. However the tsa is a fed agency, just like the cops at the courthouse(i know they are local/state/etc) if i had to submit to a naked scan to go to court, could i be held in contempt if i did not go because i did not want to submit to the scan?

 

[sparky241]

if we yell loud enough maybe this will incorporate this instead.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYcARF1-JDg&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - TSA Training Video[/ame]

 

[chayne02]

I think the issue is if you can fly a non secured no search airline. But since no option exists, there really is no other way to fly commerical. Therefore if someone chooses to fly the are forced to being seached.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I wasn't aware that airports lobbied for the TSA. It seemed like a pen was waved and the agency forced its way into our lives, like it or not.

I think the employer of the screeners is a big part of the argument. As we have discussed previously, private citizens cannot violate another person's rights - only government can do that. So a search done by private contractors might be intrusive, but not compulsory and not funded by taxpayers. The argument for 4A infringement is predicated on the fact that the government is performing the search.



Would you argue that the 2nd Amendment is not violated in the state of Illinois, because people "consent" to live there, and therefore forfeit all their gun rights?

I don't think the BOR describes a forfeiture of our civil rights depending upon where we live, who we do business with, and what checkpoint line we stand in. I don't think a presumption of consent is warranted until the person utters the magic words. Hell, half the country is so asleep that they don't know that this crap even happens in airports; it cannot be assumed that everyone who shows up at the airport has consented to getting the TSA treatment.




My argument wouldn't change without this information, but it seems that refusal of the search is treated harshly.
TSA promises $10,000 fine for refusing airport body search



I just mean that my rights certainly don't end as I leave my house. That plane ride very well could be my ride to work. I deserve rights in transit too.

As for the other examples, they all seem to fall within probable cause of a commission of a crime, something that is explicitly listed as a legitimate reason for a search in the 4A. Abuse of PC/RAS will lead to an entirely different conversation, but at least they are paying lip-service to finding a reason to search you, other than "you bought a ticket."

I don't know that the airlines lobbied for it, but it makes sense that it would not exist without them wanting it. That just follows a logical progression.

Only government can violate rights, true. Why? Because only government can compel you to perform an action with impunity and because the Constitution restricts certain powers to and others from government.

Illinois? Now there's a tough one. You make a good point. Are their rights violated? Certainly. Have they a choice to move elsewhere? Yes. Should they have to do so? No, they should not.

Does the Bill of Rights describe a forfeiture of our rights? No, it does not, but while the rights are not forfeit, the ability to voluntarily not exercise them is always ours to do or not do.

The comment I made about leaving the line being punishable is there because I had read of the punishment though not the amount. I think that when that is challenged, SCOTUS will overturn it, no matter that the existence of that punishment should not have happened in the first place.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that you have the ability to voluntarily exercise your rights or to not do so. Were it not so, it would not be a right to remain silent, it would be a compulsion to do so. Again, I've never said that these searches are right, because they are not. I've said only that they do not violate the 4A because of the fact that they are consensual. If you do not buy that ticket, if you do not enter into that contract, your rights and your ability to exercise them, especially insofar as search and seizure, remain sacrosanct.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rambone]

Bill, Dross,

Does your opinion change regarding this with the knowledge the the Feds have every intention of expanding these Government searches to trains, boats, & metro travel? I think the fact remains that they are still not establishing Probable Cause, just for the mere fact that you hire somebody to transport you.

Next step for tight security could be trains, boats, metro - TheHill.com

Then the searches will be on public roads [which you can always detour, right?]. At what point will the 4th Amendment be null & void?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Did we read the same article, Rambone? What I take away from that is that legislators will be very hesitant to implement more, more, more of the backscatter etc., and that even Napolitano wants to get out of "having to" have the ever-increasing security apparatus.

I can only guess that you read those and dismissed them as untrue.

FWIW, I do know there have been screenings on our highways for cars carrying radioactive material for at least a couple of years... heard about this while working a job which required me to do so. The report was that a man was pulled over and checked because his car was emitting ionizing radiation: Seems he'd just picked up his cat from the vet, where it had had radiation therapy. Apparently, the sensing devices don't read for type, nor was the scan a search of any vehicle, but with the little knowledge I have of radiation, I would ask you:

If the signature they found is similar to what they would find in, say, a "dirty bomb" (that is, a conventional explosive that scatters radioactive material over a large area), at what point do you say that something is significant enough a reason to start searching?

To answer your question, I think I would be OK with searches on any public or for-hire transportation that the owner of that transport requests it to be on. I have the choice of not using it. I think I would also be OK with searches on public roads if they are for cause and not just "random" or checkpoint/"every third car"/etc. (that is, search any car that's emitting a radioactive signature, but not a predetermined number or type of car just because it's the third or because it's a blue car.

Would you disagree?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Stschil]

Your argument seems to center on who is paying the screeners. Do you think that TSA would have come into place without the airlines wanting them there? Of course they want the gov't paying the screeners; that's fewer people the airlines have to pay or support by airport usage fees! Blessings,
Bill

I wasn't aware that airports lobbied for the TSA. It seemed like a pen was waved and the agency forced its way into our lives, like it or not.

I think the employer of the screeners is a big part of the argument. As we have discussed previously, private citizens cannot violate another person's rights - only government can do that. So a search done by private contractors might be intrusive, but not compulsory and not funded by taxpayers. The argument for 4A infringement is predicated on the fact that the government is performing the search.



"

I don't know that the airlines lobbied for it, but it makes sense that it would not exist without them wanting it. That just follows a logical progression.

Only government can violate rights, true. Why? Because only government can compel you to perform an action with impunity and because the Constitution restricts certain powers to and others from government.


Blessings,
Bill

The TSA came into being after 9/11 and Rambone is correct, a pen was waved and 'poof' there they were. Prior to that, a company called "Globe Services" handled all the screenings per Federal Transportation Security guidelines and initially, many of the same employees were given white shirts with TSA patches on them and continued their substandard performance. Globe is the same company that still operates the guest services stuff.


This is a government sanctioned violation of our rights pure and simple.
I don't think that the metal detectors, luggage scanners, and ion scanners are Unreasonable searches as noted in 4A. But, the Backscanners and physical searches are, IMHO, without a doubt, a HUGE violation. Probable Cause is not predicated on a mere refusal to submit.

An LEO may, legally, ask you to submit to a search of your person or property without probable cause and you can, legally, refuse and there can be no repercussions.

Our government has forceably taken away our 4th Amendment rights by extention of Transportation Security regulations and the TSA. It does not matter that it, for the time being, only occurs in the entry gates to airport passenger concourses. 4A is a protection that applies EVERYWHERE.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I keep seeing people say the government is violating rights with these searches. What I don't see anyone say is how.

This is the state of things. I'm not saying I agree, but it is the state of things. To ignore it is to click your heels together three times and repeat "I want to go to Wonderland".

The Constitution claims interstate commerce as the purview of the federal government.

The 4th Amendment prevents unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant obtained with probable cause.

SCOTUS has ruled that the federal government has general police powers to enforce its rulings and interests.

International commerce, specifically air travel, is regulated by international treaties.

By its nature air travel is interstate or international.

Purchasing a seat on an airplane is a private contract between the flyer and the airline.

As with many other contracts between private parties, the federal government has the power granted by the Constitution through the commerce clause to regulate those contracts.

You may fly to a specific place at a specific time if you establish an appropriate contract with an airline.

Using its authority under the commerce clause and the police powers granted it by SCOTUS, the federal government has determined that passengers must be screened prior to entering the aircraft.

In order to fly you must submit to the screening.

You have the right to refuse screening. If you exercise that right you may not fly.

You have the right not to fly.

You can avoid the screenings by not flying. It's as simple as that.

You have an absolute right to not be molested. You have an absolute right to not have nude pictures taken of you. You surrender that right if you choose to fly. That's reality.

Given that reality, I will not fly because I choose not to be groped.

 

[Stschil]

I keep seeing people say the government is violating rights with these searches. What I don't see anyone say is how.

This is the state of things. I'm not saying I agree, but it is the state of things. To ignore it is to click your heels together three times and repeat "I want to go to Wonderland".

The Constitution claims interstate commerce as the purview of the federal government.

The 4th Amendment prevents unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant obtained with probable cause.

SCOTUS has ruled that the federal government has general police powers to enforce its rulings and interests.

International commerce, specifically air travel, is regulated by international treaties.

By its nature air travel is interstate or international.

Purchasing a seat on an airplane is a private contract between the flyer and the airline.

As with many other contracts between private parties, the federal government has the power granted by the Constitution through the commerce clause to regulate those contracts.

You may fly to a specific place at a specific time if you establish an appropriate contract with an airline.

Using its authority under the commerce clause and the police powers granted it by SCOTUS, the federal government has determined that passengers must be screened prior to entering the aircraft.

In order to fly you must submit to the screening.

You have the right to refuse screening. If you exercise that right you may not fly.

You have the right not to fly.

You can avoid the screenings by not flying. It's as simple as that.

You have an absolute right to not be molested. You have an absolute right to not have nude pictures taken of you. You surrender that right if you choose to fly. That's reality.

Given that reality, I will not fly because I choose not to be groped.

And be fined up to $10,000 for exercising your 4th Amendment right.

The two clauses of the Constitution at at odds with each other in this situation, and are so because the government has determined that our 4th Amendment right to be safe and secure in our persons does not matter anymore. Yet another case of 'Big Brother' thinking it knows better than us.

I thought the intent of our Founders was to LIMIT governmental powers to ensure each and every one of us our INDVIDUAL freedoms.
Are We, as citizens, expected to adhere to ALL rules, regulations, laws, etc without question, just because the government says so???

If the government deems air travel so doggone dangerous,,,why not just legislate it out of existance and we'll go back to horse and buggy. Ahh,,,we can't do that, there is way too much unworked for $$$$$ to be obtained by the 'government', I forgot.

This may seem 'out there' for some, but lets imagine, just for one moment, that our 2nd Amendment right was recognized in a universal manner and that we, as responsible citizens, were able to carry firearms on aircraft. Wouldn't that serve as as much of a deterent to criminal activity in the air as it does in, oh, I don't know, Starbucks?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

And be fined up to $10,000 for exercising your 4th Amendment right.

Incorrect. I do not have to pay $10,000 not to fly. I didn't fly. No one charged me $10,000 not to. Rights fully exercised.

The two clauses of the Constitution at at odds with each other in this situation, and are so because the government has determined that our 4th Amendment right to be safe and secure in our persons does not matter anymore. Yet another case of 'Big Brother' thinking it knows better than us.

We're back to the premise the 4th Amendment applies. Why does it?

I thought the intent of our Founders was to LIMIT governmental powers to ensure each and every one of us our INDVIDUAL freedoms.

Populist thinking. Our Founders intended to govern a country, balancing the need to govern with personal liberties. The fact they considered personal liberties at all was the seminal moment.

Are We, as citizens, expected to adhere to ALL rules, regulations, laws, etc without question, just because the government says so???

Absolutely not. Above all other natural rights is the right to think what we want. However incorrect those thoughts may be.


Having said that, we are entitled to our own opinion of facts. Not the facts themselves.

If the government deems air travel so doggone dangerous,,,why not just legislate it out of existance and we'll go back to horse and buggy. Ahh,,,we can't do that, there is way too much unworked for $$$$$ to be obtained by the 'government', I forgot.

This may seem 'out there' for some, but lets imagine, just for one moment, that our 2nd Amendment right was recognized in a universal manner and that we, as responsible citizens, were able to carry firearms on aircraft. Wouldn't that serve as as much of a deterent to criminal activity in the air as it does in, oh, I don't know, Starbucks?

I've had the opportunity to carry a pistol on an airplane. I would have no problem sitting next to someone on an airplane who is exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

I'm not sure it would serve as much of a deterent. I'm not sure it wouldn't. I'm a little concerned about the law of unintended consequences. What happens if in attempting to deter a round was fired that pierced the aircraft fuel cell? Or a hydraulic line? Or killed an 85 year old grandmother and the 14 year old high school freeshman cheerleader behind her? If a plane crashes because of friendly fire is anyone on it any less dead? Are their deaths more righteous in some way?

Like it or not and believe it or not, federal air marshals are trained to think situations through that most people wouldn't. And have proper equipment (frangable rounds) to do it with. Most people that have responded to "would you pull the trigger" threads here wouldn't shoot someone in their own home without an expressed obligation to allow the bad guy to fire first. How will they somehow muster the strength to do in a tube at 35,000 feet that which they won't in their home at ground level?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I've had the opportunity to carry a pistol on an airplane. I would have no problem sitting next to someone on an airplane who is exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

I'm not sure it would serve as much of a deterent. I'm not sure it wouldn't. I'm a little concerned about the law of unintended consequences. What happens if in attempting to deter a round was fired that pierced the aircraft fuel cell? Or a hydraulic line? Or killed an 85 year old grandmother and the 14 year old high school freeshman cheerleader behind her? If a plane crashes because of friendly fire is anyone on it any less dead? Are their deaths more righteous in some way?

Like it or not and believe it or not, federal air marshals are trained to think situations through that most people wouldn't. And have proper equipment (frangable rounds) to do it with. Most people that have responded to "would you pull the trigger" threads here wouldn't shoot someone in their own home without an expressed obligation to allow the bad guy to fire first. How will they somehow muster the strength to do in a tube at 35,000 feet that which they won't in their home at ground level?

I used to support without exception the carry of any firearm with any ammo on any plane. I still support carry. I now recognize, after discussion with a member here, (and my apologies, I forget who it was), in which your arguments about fuel cells and hydraulic lines were expounded upon. It was my thought that enough redundancies existed to negate the concern at least in re: control cables and hydraulics. I've been shown where that was wrong. I would still support carry with a restriction by the airline (as in, not enforceable as a violation of law if you didn't) to "only frangible ammo allowed."
Further, I was thinking that in most cases, the 85 year old grandmother and the 14 year old cheerleader to whom you refer would most likely have been sitting down, strapped into their seats, while the hijackers would likely have been standing. I don't know how accurate that thinking is.

Undiscussed here, though, is the fact that the grandmother, the cheerleader, the hijackers, and everyone else, rich man, poor man, begger man, thief, are all going to die if the hijacker is not stopped. At risk of quoting Star Trek, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, which totally, completely sucks if you're either the one or related to him or her. I like to think that maybe the airplane scenario is different because there's no question that the criminal is going to kill.

Is anyone less dead or is their death more righteous? No, but I think it would have a deterrent effect to dump a few dead terrorists on the tarmac in some unused corner of an airport or two and leave them there to have their rotting corpses picked clean by the crows.

Might even make a poster of it:

​

I'd let 'em use this one I just did up.

Yeah, I think I like this idea.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Joe Williams]

Because you consent to the search. snip

Nope.

If you change your mind, decide you'd rather drive, and try to walk, TSA will sue you for eleven thousand dollars.

That's not consent, that's coercion.

 

[Joe Williams]

Not if you consent.

Officer: May I search your car?
You: Yes.

No 4th Amendment violation.

Sign on military base:

All Vehicles Entering this Facility are Subject to Search

No 4th Amendment violation.

Except at a military base, if you do not consent to the search at the gate, you can turn around and leave. On base, your car cannot be searched without your consent without an order to search and seize, IOW a search warrant. Ask me how I know.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Nope.

If you change your mind, decide you'd rather drive, and try to walk, TSA will sue you for eleven thousand dollars.

That's not consent, that's coercion.

And on this point we all seem to be in agreement. The fact that to fly at all remains voluntary, the contract between carrier and passenger is mutually consensual and that their consent to transport you is conditional on you permitting the search is what some seem (at least to me) to be denying.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

You have the right to refuse screening. If you exercise that right you may not fly.
snip.

Up to that point, you are correct. However, the TSA has recently decided that if you change your mind and decide to leave, they will detain you, and sue you for refusing to submit to a search.

IOW, you no longer have the right to refuse a search, and the government will punish you for trying to exercise that right.

That makes it a violation of the 4th Amendment.

 

[Joe Williams]

And on this point we all seem to be in agreement. The fact that to fly at all remains voluntary, the contract between carrier and passenger is mutually consensual and that their consent to transport you is conditional on you permitting the search is what some seem (at least to me) to be denying.

Blessings,
Bill

Until TSA recently adopted that stance, I do not think there was a Constitutional issue. The procedures were disgusting, but you could always walk away. When the government decided to start punishing people for exercising their right to refuse a search, the issue took on a whole new angle.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Up to that point, you are correct. However, the TSA has recently decided that if you change your mind and decide to leave, they will detain you, and sue you for refusing to submit to a search.

IOW, you no longer have the right to refuse a search, and the government will punish you for trying to exercise that right.

That makes it a violation of the 4th Amendment.

I tend to agree with caveat. I think it a violation of contract law, not the Constitution.

If not posted prominently prior to entry it's a hidden term and condition not present at the time you entered into the contract (entered the check-in area). At least that would be my defense (or something along those lines). If the terms and conditions of the contract are not made known, how can it be entered into voluntarily?

Do you believe that deficiency cured if they clearly detail the procedures that will be performed and the penalty for failing to complete those procedures prior to entering the check-in area?

 

[Joe Williams]

I tend to agree with caveat. I think it a violation of contract law, not the Constitution.

If not posted prominently prior to entry it's a hidden term and condition not present at the time you entered into the contract (entered the check-in area). At least that would be my defense (or something along those lines). If the terms and conditions of the contract are not made known, how can it be entered into voluntarily?

Do you believe that deficiency cured if they clearly detail the procedures that will be performed and the penalty for failing to complete those procedures prior to entering the check-in area?

Your contract is with the airlines, not the government. The airlines do not have the power to imprison you and confiscate your money for refusing their service. It is the government doing that.