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.
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.
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?