If you don't like the proceedures, you don't have to fly.
I was hoping you would mouth the Official Party Line stupidity that “Flying is not a right.” I am further pleased that you used the belligerent my way or the highway crap, “If you don’t like it, you don’t have to fly.”
Spoken like a true Statist. Janet, it that you?
Lew Rockwell on why John Pistole is WRONG about “flying is not a right”:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/70821.html
Flying IS a right. Big Sis grabbing us anywhere she wants is NOT.
Wake the hell up.
Yo-Yo: “If you don’t like the proceedures, you don’t have to fly.”
First off, it’s spelled procedures. Secondly, you’re wrong. The TSA is a government agency, and the 4th Amendment prohibits government from conducting unreasonable searches.
You think the searches are reasonable? Ah, but the 4th Amendment defines unreasonable, so you’re wrong again. A reasonable search, per the 4th Amendment, is one that is based on probable cause and one for which a warrant has been issued.
Bottom line: the searches are illegal.
What you say is true, however I can’t recall the last time I was scanned or groped at the DMV. I also don’t recall being scanned or groped when pulled over for breaking a law(traffic). If allowed, the powers that be want to expand this to all forms of motorized travel. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Are you that afraid that you would be willing to give up some liberties and freedom for some apparent security? What if the terrorist decide to go for the low hanging fruit instead? Large gatherings like sporting venues, Million man marches, Glenn Beck rallies or any large church? Do we then ban the gathering of large groups of people for their own safety? 9/11 was not a failure of airport security, it was a government failure to do it’s job. Failure of government to investigate people wanting to learn to fly but not learning to land. Failure to expel these same people who were here on expired visas. Failure to prevent the ‘underwear’ bomber from boarding even though he had no passport and was on the terror watch list. I guess it comes down to a simple choice, what’s the saying, ‘Get busy living or get busying dying’. It appears some have decided on the latter.
You do know that the Motor Vehicle Codes for all 50 States only mandate drivers licenses for commercial and government vehicles, and only while they are being used for business - right?
You want to polish your boots and whip that little swagger stick around, you'd best be learning the law first.
If you don't like the educational requirement, you don't have to dictate.
you spew the mantra “Flying on a commercial carrier is no more a Constitutional Right than having a Driver’s License is a Constitutional Right.”
Guess what? YOU ARE EITHER DELIBERATELY CARRYING WATER FOR THE DEPSOTS OF YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE FACTS. Either way, this is part of the problem. The Jack Booters spit “Flying is not a right!” The media parrots it in league with the despots.
HOWEVER: the law says different: Remember this, people.
49 U.S.C. § 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/49/VII/A/I/401/40103
(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit. - (1) The United
States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the
United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace
Acutally, the right to travel, which included driving a vehicle in the early days of the automobile, was indeed a constitutional right. Such constitutional rights are infringed when we ALLOW governments to license the activity.
As far as flying, if the government were not involved, then flying would be purely a contractual arrangement between you and a private carrier providing a service; not a right. However, you would have the constitutional right to fly yourself if you had a plane; except that flying a plane is now a licensed activity. Arguing the necessity to license such activities as driving or flying is another matter.
Since the government subsidizes virtually all commercial air traffic in one way or another it is no longer a purely commercial agreement between you and the airlines. The Fedgov is a defacto silent partner that has inserted itself in the private agreement between you and the airlines.
As such, the Fedgov gets to have a say in who gets to fly. However, the constitution was written specifically to prevent the Fedgov from violating individual rights and they certainly do have the right to molest you before they allow you fly.
The government has intruded where the government does not belong. Should similar measures be instituted at the enterences of shopping malls, I guess you will say "Shopping at the mall is no more a Constitutional Right than having a Driver's License is a Constitutional Right."
“If you don’t like the proceedures (sic), you don’t have to fly.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement
This argument, like all others in the form, “if you don’t like X, then you don’t have to Y” is inherently weak.
Walking to another state or driving cross-country in the course of doing interstate business is clearly not practical in a modern, fast-moving world.
You have a common law right and a constitutional right to travel. Those rights can’t be burdened by a demand that you surrender your 4th Amendment rights any more than your 1st Amendment rights can be burdened by a demand that you give up your 4th Amendment rights in order to read a book.
Flying on a commercial carrier is no more a Constitutional Right than having a Driver's License is a Constitutional Right.
Federal law establishes a right to air travel.
See 49 U.S.C. § 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace, section (a)(2): "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."
Hat tip to Lazamataz for this tidbit.
The U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on our right to travel in general. See U.S. vs Guest. It's pretty unequivocal. The phrase "and other instrumentalities" is particularly important in this particular topic.
The District Court was in error in dismissing the indictment as to this paragraph. The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.
Empasis mine. There are several other excellent references and quotes in the opinion.
In Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 , invalidating a California law which impeded the free interstate passage of the indigent, the Court based its reaffirmation of the federal right of interstate travel upon the Commerce Clause. This ground of decision was consistent with precedents firmly establishing that the federal commerce [383 U.S. 745, 759] power surely encompasses the movement in interstate commerce of persons as well as commodities. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196, 203 ; Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U.S. 204, 218 -219; Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 320 ; United States v. Hill, 248 U.S. 420, 423 . It is also well settled in our decisions that the federal commerce power authorizes Congress to legislate for the protection of individuals from violations of civil rights that impinge on their free movement in interstate commerce. Mitchell v. United States, 313 U.S. 80 ; Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816 ; Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454 ; Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 , Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 .
Although there have been recurring differences in emphasis within the Court as to the source of the constitutional right of interstate travel, there is no need here to canvass those differences further. 16 All have agreed that the right exists. Its explicit recognition as one of the federal rights protected by what is now 18 U.S.C. 241 goes back at least as far as 1904. United States v. Moore, 129 F. 630, 633. We reaffirm it now. 17Although there have been recurring differences in emphasis within the Court as to the source of the constitutional right of interstate travel, there is no need here to canvass those differences further. 16 All have agreed that the right exists. Its explicit recognition as one of the federal rights protected by what is now 18 U.S.C. 241 goes back at least as far as 1904. United States v. Moore, 129 F. 630, 633. We reaffirm it now. 17 [383 U.S. 745, 760] [383 U.S. 745, 760]
Freeper AndyJackson points us to this...
18 USC §241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death
18 USC § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.