Re: Erosion of Civil Liberties.

["Robert J. Hansen" <cortana@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> would be to make each ticket to travel a conditional contract to carry,
where passengers agree to security precautions,
> including personal searches if required, before embarkation; i.e., no
agreement, no travel, or 'failure to agree
> invalidates this contact to carry the customer'.

This is, in fact, what the airlines do.  "If you want to ride our airline,
you must abide by our rules" is Constitutional.  But "if you want to ride
our airline, you must abide by rules set forth by the Government" is
unconstitutional.  Basically, if the government is the one imposing the
rules, or even just applying pressure to the airlines to apply certain
rules, there's a serious Fourth Amendment concern.

> It's not neccessary for the US Constitution to be lifted. Since private
companies run the airlines, provide the majority

If the USG wishes to impose arbitrary searches, the only manner in which it
is lawful to do so is if martial law is first imposed.

> of security, and so on, it is up to THEM, not the government, to secure
themselves. Liability laws prove this - as I'm
> sure the Learned Judge Hansen will confirm.

Oh, sure.  Constitutional guarantees rarely apply to contracts between
individuals.  :)

> Therefore, it is not really up to the USG to improve security at
airports - local government, i.e., state/city Police,
> who operate under the Constitution, provide what they have been doing all
along. Federal Authorities provide Air marshal
> services, and airlines run the First Line Of Defence in securing the
airways, by preventing those possessing potentially
> dangerous items from boarding THEIR aircraft.

Correct.  But in the current climate, /if/ the USG is specifying which
security precautions must be implemented, and searches are part of that,
then the USG is on thin ice.  If the random-searches are instituted by the
airlines, by Busch Gardens, etc., on their own and without coercion from the
government, then the USG is fine.