I would but a second one would definitely raise suspicions .......
Posted on 11/15/2010 9:34:42 AM PST by Biggirl
When will body cavity searches become mandatory for air travel?
He’s the new “don’t taze me bro” guy
Thank you.
TSA Bookmark.
The TSA isn’t denying Citizens the right to fly, they are denying them the right to travel by prohibiting access to a federally controlled travel venue. No different than the gov’t building a fence along all river and ocean shorelines and telling you you can not use them because you won’t take their abuse to “qualify” to use them.
The TSA isn’t connected to flying in any way, shape, or form. They are more closely related to the toll taker on the expressway you took to get to the airport.
Americans have the Right to travel, and this includes the Right to travel by common carrier.
And the Rights of private property are equally codified by law. You do not have the right to use someone else’s airplane without their permission. An airline ticket is a private contract (first amendment - freedom of association) between two willing parties.
The TSA does not interfere with private air travel. I have used both and have not submitted to a TSA screening to travel via private aircraft.
What the TSA is doing is interfearing with the contract by saying essentially, that prior to a private party contracting for transportation with a public carrier, they must submit to a search without warrent. Blatenly unconstitutional on several grounds if you ask me.
It's been enshrined for hundreds of years in the common law. It amazes me that the government has managed to convert this pre-existing right into a 'privilege' merely by repeating the lie for long enough.
This issue touches upon some Christian doctrines regarding freedom and authority, which previous generations, IMHO, had a better foundation to resolve.
Degenerate thinking, independent of Christ, will tend to promote power of authority over freedom, risking tyranny.
From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2627492/posts?page=1
“2. Passive arrogance is generally associated with freedom and prosperity for three or four generations.
3. The freedom and prosperity originates from a large pivot of believers plus the principles of establishment. All of this is the basis for development of passive arrogance.
4. Passive arrogance accepts freedom and prosperity totally apart from human virtue and a sense of responsibility. Passive arrogance assumes one has a right to all those blessings without any adherence to the laws of divine establishment. “
Tighten up your scholarship, sonny.
Let me ask a related question. Could a state enact a quick IQ test requiring a score over 90 in order to vote? The rationale being that voting while impaired or ignorant is a clear public hazard.
For extra credit: Define the classes of property. You think that private property is one, but are there subclasses of private property, and are there other forms of property besides private?
congress critters don’t fly commerical too often...private planes for them. I don’t think private plane company’s need to use such technique, but could be wrong, would welcome someone with knowledge to let me know...
>>Can you imagine the reaction of the TSA folks if you made out like it was pleasurable, rather than invasive???<<
I’ve thought of that before too. Right there in public feign like your having an orgasm. Make everybody around think the TSA agent was having a little “too much fun”. Then use them all as witnesses to a sex crime.
Actually, I think this regime is trying to put the airline industry out of business. Either that or they are trying to nationalize the airlines, just like they did Chrysler and GM.
yawn ... yes yes real property vs possessions and real property breaks down to corporeal and incorporeal. But that is not what we are talking about is it?
Does citizen A have the RIGHT to force (as in force of law) another citizen or association of citizens (as in a company) to use their owned property for the advancement of citizen A’s interest? No they dont.
In this specific instance, you can not force a common carrier to carry you, or your baggage. If the two of you can agree to a mutually suitable arraingement, such as an exchange of cash for transport, then there is a contract. But it is not a RIGHT.
The same applies to health care. Care or treatment which requires other people’s time effort resources does not come to you as a right.
As for your question about voting, yes a state can pass such a law. State legislatures routinely CAN AND DO pass laws that infringe upon rights. That is why we have checks and balances and in that specific instance, the courts have restricted the states from enforcing such laws.
But lets not get side tracked. What the TSA is doing is not infinging upon the “right to travel”. People can and do still take their own transportation (private cars, planes, boats etc) and move about this country. What the TSA is doing is infringing upon a private contract between an individual and a common carrier by forceably modifying the terms of that contract so that the individual is subject to a warrentless search.
In my opinion, a clear violation of the constitution.
Make my day, touch MY junk......Please?
If you are yawning maybe you should be checked for COPD?
In terms of property yes, that is one way of categorizing it — but laws affecting property recognize many types of property. I’m talking old school laws, common law, thousands of years settled and developed.
Are you at all familiar with why a business operating as common carrier may reject to give passage to given cargo or passenger?
Are you aware that not all contracts between individuals are legal? And why some contracts are illegal?
We agree that the TSA, the Federal government has egregiously overstepped here and insufferably imposes upon the Liberty of citizens.
I would but a second one would definitely raise suspicions .......
To quote one US public law: “A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.”
See 49 U.S.C. § 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace.
The Right of Travel is a long established common law right, one of the fundamental Natural Rights of Man.
Despite what any confused or uninformed media personality or blogger may say, your freedom to travel as an American citizen is a right, and in our time a right we must all re-assert boldly.
Back when the ratification of the Constitution was being debated, one of the Federalists' objection to the 1st ten amendments, was that by listing them out in the Constitution, some day, the government (or others) might claim that because a natural right is not listed, it doesn't exist. As you can see from this thread, their warning as come to pass in spades. The other side of the coin, of course, was that the anti-federalists felt that without listing them at all, the government would some day claim they don't exist. You can just imagine how poorly our right to Keep and Bear Arms would stand today had the anti-federalists not ultimately carried the day on that particular point.
True, but only because you applied a nonsensically fierce literalism in that interpretation of what was wrote. Would you allow a state to restrict the voting franchise to those able to proof at the time the vote that they have an IQ over 90?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.