“You have a lessened privacy interest in your car, flying, etc., than you do when you are in your house, as the current course of jurisprudence stands.”
Privacy is much different than unreasonable search and seizures. If a private citizen is not allowed to grope me when I am in public, then the government should be held to the same standards. If it is acceptable for a government goon to grope whomever they deem worthy of the groping, then I should be free to grope whomever I deem worthy of groping.
Privacy in your context is more related to evesdropping than it is to the actions of the TSA.
“The Fourth Amendment has been repeatedly found to not apply when you’re travelling.”
What other enumerated rights do we lose when traveling? Do journalists lose their “free press” when they travel? Can I be tried repeatedly for the same crime if I am traveling? Do I lose the right to a trial by jury if I am traveling? If I am able to lose one of the enumerated rights while traveling, then we are able to lose them all. Is a free people a people that only retains rights when they are not traveling or can a free people freely travel?
Be very careful of the “living document” trap. They love to snare even conservative folks in those traps.
If you read carefully my comments, I did not say this was or was not within the bounds of the original intent of the Constitution; arguments can and have been made on either side. Regardless of your opinion or mine, the controlling law NOW says that your Fourth Amendment rights are not applicable when you travel because you voluntarily put yourself out there. That's not just wiretapping, it's Supreme Court decisions relating directly to searching cars, trunks, passengers, “smelling” marijuana; pretextual stops; even with respect to renting homes, visiting other’s homes, and so on.
On a personal matter, and for the record; these are NOT decisions I've made or argued in favor of; they are the controlling case law as decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. You can argue that they aren't the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional and I understand that argument; but Marbury vs. Madison has controlled since it was decided. I personally think that decision was an over extension of the judicial branch, HOWEVER, as it has stood for over 200 years, it's the accepted law of the land.
And back to the specific incident at hand; if Rand Paul's argument is the TSA is unconstitutional, then why hasn't he introduced a bill eradicating it? Why is his defense that the “TSA is more concerned with people who don't want to harm us...” rather than the TSA is completely unconstitutional.