In an interview on the FOX News Network last month, former TSA Director Mo McGowan made the following statement:
"Nobody likes having their 4th amendment violated going through a security line, but the truth of the matter is, uh, we're going to have to do it."
That’s right folks; the former TSA director believes that, in the 4Th Amendment, when the Constitution states that “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”, it is just kidding. What we the unwashed masses fail to understand, in McGowan’s view, is that there is apparently hidden here the fact that, if they decide to, the government has the power to ignore the meaning of this amendment and simply do whatever they want. [This massive power is perhaps found in an ultra secret portion of the Constitution that we have just never been shown before.]
Inherent in his own words here is the implication that the Constitution is simply a pie in the sky fantasy that not only can, but should be ignored whenever some bureaucrat such as Mo here decides that he wants to do so. The Constitution is the fantasy to McGowan, the the ability to ignore what the Constitution says is “the truth”.
That anyone can state such an odious comment with a straight face and not understand the implications for its precedent is astonishing. If those who are actually in charge of implementing processes such as these believe that they are not violating the rights of those who are subjected to them, it is a much different thing than having someone implement them in full awareness that they are violating them. The former would be an idiot; the latter would be a criminal.
How is it not a crime for a government body to willfully violate the rights of the citizens as enumerated in the Constitution? How can the Congress hear statements proving this willful disregard of the rights of the citizens they are elected to represent and not take immediate action? How can the President of the country, whose oath of office requires that he intercede in such matters to “protect and defend the Constitution”, not intervene?
Do they not care? Do we as a people no longer care?
We must remember that allowing the government to remove a right [ANY RIGHT] means that ALL of the rights that remain are merely privileges to be allowed only at Government discretion. Allowing rights to be taken away makes the idea of rights the fantasy.
