That being the case, her treatment was for resisting the search, not reciting the constitution. Reciting the constitution was merely how she resisted the search.
I'm not claiming that the amendment is not meaningful. I'm pointing out how the amendment's meaning is relevant to what happened. The original article makes it clear that the reciter didn't understand that relevance.
BTW I haven't written anything about the legitimacy of TSA searches so your presumptions along those lines are unfounded and insulting. And, before you presume to teach me something, learn the difference between recite and read. (Hint - she did the former, not the latter.)
You seemed to think that those "quibbles" were important when you thought that they supported your position, so surely they're just as important when they don't.
She misrepresented what she did.
BTW - Comparing what she did with King cheapens King.
I'm not claiming that the amendment is not meaningful. I'm pointing out how the amendment's meaning is relevant to what happened. The original article makes it clear that the reciter didn't understand that relevance.
BTW I haven't written anything about the legitimacy of TSA searches so your presumptions along those lines are unfounded and insulting. And, before you presume to teach me something, learn the difference between recite and read. (Hint - she did the former, not the latter.)