Well, I am not sure it is missing the point when the topic of this thread is homeland security and the constitution. Something is either constituional or it is not.

If it is not constitutional, our system is set up to work that out within the courts. Like Midtown said, the remedy in a system of laws is to file a lawsuit.

If it IS constitutional, we either respect the constitution because we are a country that respects the law, thank goodness, or we change the constitution. Of course, changing the constitution is going to be difficult when you are talking about security on the border.

I suppose a third option is to put pressure on the agency to not exercise its rights under the constitution.

To ignore the constitution because we don't like it is a slipperly slope. I think this is a topic of legitimate debate to clear the air and allow all the parties to educate each other regarding what the law allows/requires vs. what the people want. It is absolutely imperative, to my way of thinking, for people to understand what is and is not constitutional. An educated population makes all the difference. It is not enough to simply dislike the results. It is not until it is established whether something is constitutional or not that lawful and legal responses can take place.

Ignoring the law is a step towards savagery. Changing an unpopular law is the civilized response.