The Transportation Security Administration is planning to make greater use of full-body scanners, even as critics continue to raise concerns ranging from privacy to porn, or in the words of one Congressman:

“Do we really need to take nude pictures of Grandma or my 8-year-old daughter in order to be able to secure an airplane?”

I’m still waiting for the argument that full-body scanners are not authorized by the Constitution; that the President’s power as Commander in Chief and Congress’ power to provide for the common defense do not assume the authority to deploy and use full-body scanners.

That’s ridiculous, you say. No one would make an argument like that.

I’m not so sure.

Frankly, I don’t see how the enumerated-powers argument against body scanners would be any more far-fetched than the enumerated-powers argument against the Democrats’ evolving vision for health care reform. The latter argument goes something like this: Congress’ powers to provide for the general welfare and regulate commerce do not assume the authority to reform health care, much less mandate that all citizens have health insurance.

You might respond that I’m hopelessly ignorant; that there is a big difference between these two arguments. And depending on your political orientation, you might attempt to explain that big difference this way …

Greater latitutude should be given to the President and Congress when defending our nation because our enemies are ruthless and nimble and constantly evolving. Besides, even if the health-insurance mandate could be justifed by the general-welfare and commerce clauses, it would violate the “takings” clause of the Fifth Amendment: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”.

Or this way …

Greater latitude should be given to Congress when providing for the general welfare and regulating commerce because our founding fathers never anticipated contemporary advances in medical science and the sizable portion of GDP commanded by today’s health care industry. Besides, even if full-body scanners could be justified by the common defense clause, they would violate the letter and spirit of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” — of “persons” as well “houses” — and thus requires warrants based on probable cause, “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

So, what exactly is my point? Honestly, it has very little to do with insurance mandates or body scanners, both of which, properly structured and implemented, seem to be perfectly appropriate if not necessary responses to the world as it is, not as it once was, nor as we might like it to be. Instead, with apologies for the long and winding road to get here, my point is this: Strict constructionism is for the birds.

The Constitution can be used to argue for and against a lot of things. And it should be. But eventually, we have to remember that it is a very old document and its authors were as incapable of imagining the world we live in today as we are incapable of imagining the world our descendents will live in 200-plus years from now.

Yes, our founding fathers gave us, in Article V, a mechanism for updating the Constitution. But considering how difficult they made this mechanism, I suspect they intended it to be used primarily for matters of principle and paradigm, not matters of such tactical and transient nature as health insurance and airline security. For those issues — the tactical issues — our founding fathers gave us not a rule book, but an opportunity to elect representatives who would presumably debate and address contemporary issues on contemporary terms, checked and balanced by colleagues and voters living in the same world at the same point in time.