Alaska Bill Would Criminalize Invasive TSA Pat Downs

[Mr Khan]

HappySqurriel said:

SamuelRSmith said:

SvennoJ said:
It's about time somebody started to take our rights and dignity back that have been so readily discarded in the name of terrorism.

Well, loads of people try. The problem is that the two best ways of controlling the Feds are the States and the Supreme Court. The States are often blackmailed (cut your funding, impose regulations that harm your best industries, or in the case above - impose a NO-FLY-ZONE) into submission. Historically, it's mainly the Supreme Court that has kept Government in check.. and the Feds know this, so they do everything they can to stop cases going through to the courts. Dropping cases, offering settlements, etc.

I remember watching Andrew Napolitano talk about a case where the FBI had arrested two people for infringing the Patriot Act. When the case came to court, the Judge basically turned around to the FBI and said "do you really want to do this? I'm about to declare the Patriot Act unconstitutional", couple days later the FBI have mysteriously dropped the case. 

One thing that I have never really understood is why can't the constitutionality of a bill be challenged by anyone?

It would seem to me that any citizen, or group of citizens, whould be able to challenge constitutionality of any municipal, state or federal law passed regardless of whether they have been charged with breaking it.

It can be done, but it is easier to do if you actually have a case regarding the constitutionality of the law. The Federal Court system is designed primarily to avoid matters that don't pertain to constitutionality, such that you rather need to have a strong basis for something being unconstitutional to get federal courts to hear cases, not merely your claim of unconstitutionality. A physical case creates a greater claim than a lawsuit existing in a vacuum. States can get away with making direct lawsuits, because they are, well, states, and it is easier for a resident of a state to sue a state, which could then evolve into a federal case, but the 11th amendment dictates that non-residents of a state cannot sue said state (so if, say, i were gay and didn't like that whole Prop 8 thing in California, as a PA resident, i am legally barred from suing them)

Centuries of jurisprudence dictate that it is easier to make a case if you have an actual case, which makes sense because otherwise the whole thing would devolve into a constitutionality pissing contest, where special interest groups would immediate launch lawsuits in federal court for any law they didn't like. What happens instead is that groups like, for instance, NARAL Pro-Choice America look for a specific instance where someone is being brought up on anti-abortion laws, and they then contribute money to that individual, perhaps even provide them with lawyers, to take their case into higher court.