It is my understanding that anybody can challenge constitutionality. The problem lies in the fact that it's an incredibly expensive and long process. As such, only those with sufficient means, or those who have been severely affected by a law, will ever go through the process.

---

It's amazing that the Founders missed out on the biggest (and most obvious) flaw in the Constitution... that it's just so easy to ignore. Maybe there should have been a clause that subjects every bill to scrutiny of the courts before becoming law. Obviously, when the Constitution was devised, Congress was more likely to defend the Constitution, anyway, due to the appointment of Senators. Nevertheless, the Constitution was subverted almost instantly: the second President passed laws infringing on the Freedom of Speech (John Adams, Alien and Sedition Act) - the very same people who wrote and voted for the Constitution, wrote and voted for a law that infringed on the most fundamental right in the Constitution.

Here's another example of the States growing tired of the Feds over-reach: http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/state-opposition-to-ndaa-grows/

" the Virginia House overwhelming passed “A BILL to prevent any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”"

"Arizona Senate Border Security, Federalism and States Sovereignty Committee approved SB1182 6-1, bringing it one step away from a full Senate vote. The bill, “prohibits this state and agencies of this state from participating in the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 and classifies the act of attempting to enforce or enforcing these sections as a class 1 misdemeanor.”"

"Six local governments have passed resolutions condemning sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA. Earlier this week, the Town Council of Macomb, N.Y. unanimously passed a resolution, and Fairfax, Calif. approved a similar resolution 4-1. On Wednesday, New Shoreham, R.I. also passed a resolution opposing NDAA detention."

^ That article was written by Thomas Woods, an incredibly smart man, who has theorized that due to the way that the Federal Government was formed (created by the States), the States are actually the ones who have sovereignty, as such the States can nullify any aspect of the Federal Government that they wish. Given the political will, of course.

You know, i never really had that big of an issue with the TSA pat-downs.

Now the various people they have to administer it to due to "perceived fairness" that's another issue.

When you have to pat down a 4 year old or a 97 year old woman that's never left the country, you've kinda forgotten that there is a big difference between "Racial Profiling" and "Profiling" which does sometimes include race, sex and gender... because some crimes are VERY disproportionately committed by certain races, sexes and genders... and ages for that matter. (And yes, I do mean to have sexes and genders separate... there is a difference.)

Actually as I recall, there is a law banning transgender people from flying that just passed in Canada.  Which doesn't make any kind of sense really.

Well, the TSA infringes on your right to privacy, and the freedom to travel (which the Supreme Court determined was protected by the Constitution under the 9th Amendment). Pre-screening (checking up on passengers' activities before the flight) is an infringment on the 4th amendment, and potentially on the first (as they may refuse travel based on something you've said). It also infringes on the 10th amendment, as the ability to regulate such things are not defined in the Constitution, therefore it is a state issue.

The issues of the effectiveness of patdowns/profiling/whatever don't really come into it, until you address the above concerns.

Sure

1) It's not really infringing on your right to travel, you can still travel.   Just not by plane if you don't fit the criteria.

It's no more infiring then forcing someone to pass quaifications to get a drivers liscense.  These are very specific circumstances that can be dangerous.

There's still planes, trains, buses and boats.

2) You're protected against unreasonable search and seizure... not all search and seizure.  TSA patdowns happen when you repeatidly fail a metal detector/body scanner or something is picked up on either of those. 

Those are perfectly reasonable criteria considering the above.  Espiecally since you can refuse and just leave.   Like Rand Paul did recently in protest of said policy.

3)  There isn't a police force in the US who is going to ignore you as a suspect if you say something that indicates you might be guilty of a crime... I'm not seeing how that's any different here.

You can.

"Don't Ask Don't tell"  was just overturned by a group of Homosexual Republicans like a year ago.

If you want a more Leftwing issue related to this

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216

That is bullshit because I know for a fact that they send random people in the line to the body scanners, and if you don't like the body scanner then you have to get a pat down.  To these random lucky people simply walking through the metal detector isn't an option.

That was metal detector or body scanner.   As in, you have to go through one or the other.  Some places it's just all body scanners.

Body scanners aren't unreasonable.