[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not sure why it is so confusing.

Because you are not acknowledging the complexities of due process. It is much more complicated than saying an amendment affords this right, and think that is the end of it. There are many procedures that apply in due process and the extension and protection from certain legal processes.

The 4th amendment says all Americans have the right to due process.

Actually, the 5th and the 14th amendments afford the right of due process. The 4th amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Ironic that you bring up the 4th amendment, because the 4th amendment is actually the one that introduces the concepts of due cause or probable cause, which allows the investigation and inclusion of individuals on restriction lists.

Being put on a no fly list without question is not due process.

If there is probable cause you can be investigated and restricted based on suspicion. If you are accused of domestic violence, and the there is evidence to take out a warrant, search or otherwise, you will be placed on a weapons restriction list. If you suspected of being a threat to aviation systems, and a warrant is issued during an investigation, you will be placed on a restriction list, and not afforded the right of due process. Both of these instances are in the public's best interest and comply with law. This is not unconstitutional as you are still under investigation due to probable cause, and until a criminal or civil process is initiated you have no reason to be afforded due process.

If there was a way for someone on the no fly list to challenge why they are on the list that WOULD be due process.

There is a process. This has been mentioned before.

There isn't, therefore the no fly list goes against the 4th amendment and is unconstitutional.

You're right, there isn't a no fly list that goes against the 4th amendment.

Apply the same argument to every list you want to make that actually makes it through the courts and is upheld as any kind of law.

As has been discussed, there already are processes in place that make this 100% legal. Just because you don't understand the process does not mean that it is unconstitutional. That is one of the biggest problems in the US. The average person who claims to be a constitutionalist doesn't really know how the constitution works. They conflate the Bill of Rights with the constitution, not recognizing the seven articles that define government and processes of government. The worst part is they don't comprehend the judicial review process and the influence this holds on deciding the constitutionality of law and process itself. Could this be a challenge for you as well?