Is The 4th Amendment Dead?...

I walked through airport security in Phoenix, Arizona a few days ago.

As I gathered my belt and my shoes I thought, as I always do, “It would be easier if we shipped our belongings via UPS and just fly naked.”

Then I saw an elderly Asian woman hunched in a wheelchair. She was being patted down by a female TSA employee. Another TSA worker was going through every pocket and pouch in her designer carry-on bag.

This isn't the first time the disparity between the profile of the alleged 9/11 hijackers and the people I've seen shaken down by TSA has struck me.

Years ago I saw a young couple with a baby in a stroller penned in a glass enclosure while TSA workers rummaged through their diaper bag. Across the security area, in a similar glass cage, an elderly woman looked bewildered and frightened as a TSA employee shouted at her, asking if "this" was her bag.

I was incensed by the outrageous treatment of these two parties and, as I gathered my belongings at the end of the roller line, I said to the TSA worker watching me, "You people need to update your profile."

"What?" was his reply.

"I said you need to update your profile."

"Why?"

"Because I'm telling you that the old lady over there is not the one today. And neither is that couple."

The TSA worker was stunned. His confused but indignant response was, "We don't profile!"

I replied, "Maybe you should start," and walked to my gate.

If young male Islamic extremists who were nationals of Middle Eastern countries really did execute the 9/11 attacks, why are we not looking for people like them? Why are we looking "equally" at US citizens, who are Caucasian, Christian, elderly, married and female? Truthfully, I have never seen anyone remotely matching the description of the 9/11 hijackers scrutinized by airport security.

This leads me to considering the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution which reads, “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.”

The 4th Amendment was intended, in at least one dimension, to protect Americans - and those with vested interests in and relationships with America - against the use of “general warrants” by the government. A general warrant was issued to give local law enforcement and agents of the king authority to search broadly for subversive materials or goods suspected of having evaded taxation. General warrants or “writs of assistance” were commonly used by the King of England to ferret out political dissidents.

Over time, US Courts have relaxed the protections of the Amendment with justifications of expediency or the public interest and have expanded an even less stringent interpretation of the 4th Amendment to give administrative branches of government more search power than law enforcement agencies have.

I researched the history of the 4th Amendment at FindLaw.com. It’s a very interesting site for that type of stuff.

A person's right to privacy guaranteed under the 4th Amendment is seriously abridged in an airport facility. TSA is not a law enforcement agency. Courts have historically (since the 1990s) ruled that this type of agency is under no obligation to demonstrate reasonable cause before searching any aspect of a person or their belongings as long as the agency feels that its interests outweigh the interests of the individual. (Who sees the problem with that reasoning?)

Ironically, there is nationwide outrage about the idea that Arizona's new "anti-illegal immigration" law might violate a person's right to privacy. How much more invasive is a pat-down or a strip search in an airport facility than a police officer asking me my immigration status while arresting me for committing a crime?

So, we have a tyrannical monarchy that used general warrants to justify searches for subversive materials among its subjects in the 17th and 18th centuries. This is one of the tools the crown had to maintain its power and control over the people. We have a revolution that establishes a new nation based on the premise of Natural and inalienable rights. Over time, we have a people who grow complacent and a government that grows hungry for power and control over the people.

Is it a conspiracy? It’s certainly the natural progression of things.

The net effect of the increased "security" measures is to habituate me to submitting to search by any government agency. This extends to me being "okay" with the government having access to my bank records, my internet history, my library books, my use of toll roads, and virtually all other things that I do.

After all, I have nothing to hide!

This makes it possible for the collective sheriff’s departments of the state of North Carolina, as they recently did, to request access to a data base of medical and psychiatric patients’ names and the prescription medications they are taking – under the auspices that this access will make it easier for them to enforce federal drug laws and stop thousands of deaths due to accidental overdoses – and Americans collectively don’t bat an eye. Isn’t that one of the most sacrosanct of relationships, the doctor-patient privilege?

Again, I have nothing to hide. But if I’m running for mayor, I may not want members of the local law enforcement community to know that three years ago I took heavy psychotic medication to treat severe depression and thoughts of suicide following some traumatic incident in my life. (I didn’t, by the way. And I’m not running for mayor, either.)

This shift away from the protections of the 4th Amendment has happened gradually. If the US Government had suddenly implemented all these changes in one day, I would like to think that there would have been such vehement opposition that the restrictions would have been repealed immediately.

But little by little civil liberties have been taken from the people and the power of government has grown beyond any bounds intended by the founders.

How will we reclaim our Natural rights? How will our government remember that its proper role is one of protector, and not parent or oppressor?

The answer is more complex than “no incumbents” or “get rid of Obama”. This is a puzzle that should inspire the true liberal and the true traditionalist alike. Let’s work together on it.