You are absolutely incorrect. Patently and completely incorrect. I don’t subscribe to hidden rights in “penumbras and emanations”. Doing so is profoundly dangerous. Just like Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia, I believe that we need to read the text and strictly construe the text. You are the one attempting to read a “right to fly” into the Constitution. There is no more a “right to fly” than there is a “right to abortion” or a “right to same-sex ‘marriage’”. When you attempt to add things in the Constitution that are not there, you completely destroy the Constitution.
You are simply attempting to read something into the Constitution that doesn’t exist, and I called you on it, and now you are calling names and comparing yourself to Martin Luther.
As for “condescension and elitism”, I find that charge laughable. I cannot stand people who destroy the Constitution, whether they are libertines or liberals. Libertines who want to read new “rights” into the Constitution are just as dangerous to our system of government as liberals who want to do so. The fact that you might like a particular “right” doesn’t make it A-OK. If you give judges free reign to read things into the Constitution that are not there, you WILL be ruled by an oligarchy.
That’s the point I am making.
You must have me confused with someone else, because I never claimed there was a right to fly. I actually sent you a post on that point, stating “I haven’t read or thought much about a constitutional “right to fly,” so I don’t have an opinion on it.” I don’t dispute the federal government’s authority to regulate interstate commerce, but like I wrote earlier, I haven’t thought much about a citizen’s right to travel.
What I’m concerned about are the illegal searches. Unless I misunderstand your previous posts, you believe the government has the right to conduct these nude scans and genital gropes. If government has actionable intelligence that a particular passenger is a terrorist or a bomb is hidden on a specific aircraft or even that terrorists plan an attack at a specific airport, then I don’t contest the government’s right to request a warrant and do intrusive searches for those precisely limited reasons. I have the right to #1 know why they are searching me and #2 know what they are searching for.
What I’m saying is the 4th clearly doesn’t permit the government to extend probable cause to the point where it’s meaningless. That’s what they’re doing. They can’t search millions of travelers simply because a terrorist group somewhere is contemplating a terrorist attack at some future date or time. The very random nature of these searches prove they aren’t searching for something or someone in particular so much as searching everyone as a deterrent to a few. That’s unconstitutional.