3 ms·

The text of the constitution at issue is your right to be free from "unreasonable searches". Your pi example ignores the fact that "unreasonable" is hard to def

The text of the constitution at issue is your right to be free from "unreasonable searches". Your pi example ignores the fact that "unreasonable" is hard to define, and indeed, this case would not have reached the Supreme Court if there were easy answers. All we are saying is that in the United States, what the Supreme Court says on this issue _categorically_ makes it constitutional. That does not mean you cannot disagree with the policy, or advocate it be changed. For example, you could advocate that your state pass a law prohibiting the practice. Or you could advocate to amend the constitution. But saying it's unconstitutional just makes no sense, and would make our entire system unworkable. How do you feel about other issues? Is the right to an abortion (Roe v Wade) unconstitutional? Gay marriage? The Affordable Care Act? The right to tax income at all? There are groups that think all of those decisions were bad and unconstitutional -- but the Supreme Court has the final say. Amend the constitution, pass new laws, protest all you want, but saying any of these things are unconstitutional just because you disagree makes no sense.

mindslight 8y ago
> All we are saying is that in the United States, what the Supreme Court says on this issue _categorically_ makes it constitutional This is a political assertion you are making. It prevents invoking the intent of the constitution without some contextual disclaimer, thus hindering critiques of whether the current government has run aground of its charter. > There are groups that think all of those decisions were bad and unconstitutional -- but the Supreme Court has the final say The final say over whether the government considers an action constitutional! While the Supreme Court interprets the law for the government, it does not have a monopoly on the definition of the word "constitutional". Please note that my original comment even used the term "anticonstitutional", because I did somewhat anticipate this authoritarian fallacy that courts define truth. Regardless of arguing the semantics of whether "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" are constrained to only referencing the legal scope, the argument I'm making is that the practice of stopping and harassing every traveler runs directly contrary to what the founders intended as well as the values our society purports to hold.

mindslight 8y ago

> All we are saying is that in the United States, what the Supreme Court says on this issue _categorically_ makes it constitutional This is a political assertion you are making. It prevents invoking the intent of the constitution without some contextual disclaimer, thus hindering critiques of whether the current government has run aground of its charter. > There are groups that think all of those decisions were bad and unconstitutional -- but the Supreme Court has the final say The final say over whether the government considers an action constitutional! While the Supreme Court interprets the law for the government, it does not have a monopoly on the definition of the word "constitutional". Please note that my original comment even used the term "anticonstitutional", because I did somewhat anticipate this authoritarian fallacy that courts define truth. Regardless of arguing the semantics of whether "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" are constrained to only referencing the legal scope, the argument I'm making is that the practice of stopping and harassing every traveler runs directly contrary to what the founders intended as well as the values our society purports to hold.