Hey genius, we are talking about a CONSTITUTIONAL right to fly, which does not exist. You are actually disproving your point, (although you don’t realize it yet.) You quote the United States code, which does give one a statutory right to use the airspace. That statutory right is subject to the other regulations that Congress enacts. Read through the rest of the provisions of the U.S.C. related to air travel.
When you get a J.D. come back and talk to me then. As I said to the other poster, silly notions are not the law.
Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human rights concept that the constitutions of numerous states respect. It asserts that a citizen of a state, in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others,[1] and to leave that state and return at any time. Some immigrants’ rights advocates assert that human beings have a fundamental human right to mobility not only within a state but between states.
Why should he? Most JD's have little concept of constitutional law. When I was in school in the mid seventies they were already teaching that the Constitution was a living, breathing document to be constantly changed to adapt to the new norms of society. I know, I took the courses.
In fact, you do remember that when SC Justice Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School she dropped the constitutional law course requirements for first year law students and replaced them with international law course requirements.
So why should anyone trust an attorney, particularly a younger attorney, to be an expert in constitutional law? The Constitution was written in plane language so normal non-attorney peon types could understand it. It is the attorneys who have consistently distorted the meaning of it.
Check out the Enabling act of 1934 to get an understanding of how we the people have been separated from our constitutional rights.
I hadn't even read this little ditty of yours, you arrogant fraud. Most law programs actually require their students to read the cases that they are supposed to study, and when a case says an arresting officer has to have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search it probably means that the arresting officer must have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search.
Unless you got your JD from Georgetown and cain't remember the meaning of "is."
But being a constitutional law scholar, I presume that you can just put your hands over a copy of the constitution and feel the eminations.