The Supreme Court has already ruled that neither of those apply at the border. Nor does the 4th.

Would you agree with the court when it determined that the rights of black people were different between northern and southern states, or that internment of the Japanese was legal during WWII? The supreme court has been wrong on many issues for decades on end throughout US history. They haven't all of a sudden become infallible in the last 20 years.

They certainly aren't infallible, and were wrong on those rulings. But until someone with standing brings a new case, that is the law as it stands.

If you're hinting that what is legal is not necessarily right, it seems odd to fall back to this position when the original comment about the 1st and 5th amendment are legal, not moral.

Instead of just mentioning the 1st and 5th amendment, it may have been better just to say that the US has a culture of privacy and personal freedom.

You are taking jedberg's comment too literally

> The Supreme Court has already ruled that neither of those apply at the border. Nor does the 4th. reply

This is an extremely overbroad generalization.

The supreme court may or may not rule that forcing someone to be surveilled by federal agents in order to travel by plane is unconstitutional, or it may not. And it may be right or wrong. My qualm is legal and moral.

Isn't there an argument from principle that violating a quarantine during a pandemic is not actually peaceable?