Well, it's a pretty low bar to have a rational basis. Such ought to be apparent. When it is not apparent -- and called into question -- it must be defended, f

Well, it's a pretty low bar to have a rational basis. Such ought to be apparent. When it is not apparent -- and called into question -- it must be defended, for to acknowledge no rational basis is policy suicide. The problem is not that this law has no rational basis, it's that it is tenuous. I can imagine a few: we don't want terrorists to be able to smuggle (dangerous) materiel past our borders when detecting such is relatively trivial (i.e. airport checks are easy). Or we want to condition the general public to accepting invasive behavioral controls. Clearly some rational bases cannot be acknowledged. And so that is the test. The proponent of the law must acknowledge a rational basis for its existence. Should he fail, it would be devastatingly easy to lobby for its removal. So the real problem is: let's identify precisely the rational basis here. What is the motivation?