I've never quite understood how the "no fly list" is itself a constitutional process in the first place. It lacks due process and transparency with an appeal process that is administrative rather than judicial. I don't understand how the government can constitutionally invoke a penalty without first having to prove that some violation has occured.
Layered complexity induces logical contradictions. Specifically here, the modern world forces many people to fly, even though it technically remains a voluntary activity. Businesses are free to reject serving you for any reason, even making such decisions in lock step with the rest of the industry. Ergo, your right to travel gets constructively neutered through commercial law, even though your axiomatic/primitive rights have purportedly not been violated.
AFAICT the airlines wanted all of that bullshit legislation to indemnify themselves from the damages caused by terrorism. Technically you might be able to create your own airline (and airports) that rejected all of the groping theater, etc. And perhaps after decades of fighting in court you'd win the right for your companies to not have their freedom hampered in such a manner. But none of that is economically prudent, so we're stuck with the blatantly anticonstitutional regulations.
Airports are a mess of constitutional violation all over the place. That they can search you and that protests can't happen at airports are already violations of the constitution. When you have the entire US populace almost united together in effort is when the constitution breaks down. See WW2 and the internment of Japanese civilians and 9/11 with the creation of department of homeland security and all it's abuses.
