Quote of the Day: "Nobody Likes to Have Their 4th Amendment Violated... We're Going to Have to do it"

by the Left Coast Rebel

(Editor's Note: Thanks to Allahpundit, Pajamas Media and Gateway Pundit for the links! New readers, make yourselves at home and bookmark Left Coast Rebel!)

Who do you think said this yesterday:

"Nobody likes to have their 4th Amendment violated going through a security line, but truth of the matter is, we're gonna have to do it."

Give up?

Why, it is was no-less than the Former Assistant TSA Admin on Security Checkpoints, Mo McGowan on Fox News ( 2:30 on the video for the money line):

At least he's honest! Who needs a 4th Amendment, anyway?

Hat tip W.C. Varones.

Updated: Dan Miller at PJM:

Under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

More than two hundred years old, the Fourth Amendment and many other parts of the Constitution often get lost or simply ignored in the fog of bureaucracy en route to enhanced governmental authority over United States citizens. That is not a good thing. Unlike much modern legislation, the language of the Fourth Amendment is short, simple. and relatively easy to understand. However, the often incomprehensible gloss applied through legislation and judicial interpretation has made the very important word “unreasonable” difficult to interpret abstractly.

More from LCR on TSA:

TSA Director John Pistole: "Pat downs so thorough we can feel what's in your underwear"

Found: Dr Ruth's TSA Guide to groping female airport passengers from 2004

Fox News Related:

Fox News colleagues caught on video mocking Sarah Palin


  1. That dingbat was telling us this is what necessary to fly safely. BS!!!! Muslims, as it offends their senstivities to modesty, aren't required to do this. Since the very people that committ terrrorist acts, middle Eastern males between the ages of 16-30 not white conservatives, aren't required to the so called safety protocols, then what is the point. This is more government intrusions, plain and simple, and what's worse, the government protects those that want to do the harm that is was suppose to avoid by allowing them to by-pass the security in the name of religious sensitivity.

  2. What do you mean 'Muslims' don't have to submit to a pat-down because of modesty? It's because of modesty that no one else wants to be patted down as well. Do you have any evidence that pat-downs aren't enforced for Muslims? I don't believe they'd be excused -- they can't play the religious-freedom card, since that's in that 'constitution' that the TSA has no problem ignoring...


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.