Coffee,Tea,or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wifes Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell attheAirport?

lewrockwell.com ^ | 12/18/2002 | Nicholas Monahan

[TaZ]

Don't worry about HappyGal and her bawdry friends (especially the one who represents the unwashed masses), they were just called in as a last-ditch rescue attempt after she got submerged in her own diatribe.

Use an American historical perspective and they fold like cheap suits.

[exodus]

To: exodus
"... This society has decided that you must consent to a search in order to fly on a commercial flight, a requirement perfectly in accord with the Constitution..."
# 615 by general_re
**********************

You say that the Constitution allows random searches by government agents in private commercial airports?

You don't know what you're talking about.

"This society" didn't require searches in airports conducted by government agents. That illegal requirement was forced on us by our socialist government.

[exodus]

To: exodus
"... No rights can be absolute and unregulated ..."
# 615 by general_re
**********************

You have no idea what a right is, general_re .

Anything that can be regulated is not a right.

[Tauzero]

If you are familiar with the Federalist Papers, then you already know my interpretation of the constitution.

[general_re]

You say that the Constitution allows random searches by government agents in private commercial airports?

So long as those searches are consensual, yes. You have the perfect right to refuse to be searched at any time during the boarding process.

That illegal requirement was forced on us by our socialist government.

Illegal based on what? Your say-so? Point me to the language of the Constitution that makes consensual searches illegal...

[Tauzero]

(although I would also throw in a Jefferson letter or two)

[general_re]

Anything that can be regulated is not a right.

So my right to free speech, for example, is absolute? I am free to say anything I want, whenever and wherever I want?

[TaZ]

There is a regime, made up by the powerful elite, who not unlike other tyrannies, rule as an oligarchy by exercise of their wealth and power.

The common American senses the futility of their position and that is why most choose not to participate in the farce that is the U.S. two-party system, through not voting at all.

If the only political options that a so-called "free" people have come from two-parties corrupted and controlled by a rich upper class and their puppet political incumbants, you can expect the middle and lower classes of that "regime" to feel hopeless and out-of-touch with the political process and to be seen as a threat to the those who control the system.

The U.S. was established for the common good of the common man under common law.

That no longer exists in America today and at best the "common man" can only hope for a benign tyranny that allows him to live in a semblance of peace and liberty.

Be prepared to show your license to law enforcement if you intend to exercise your God-given rights.

[general_re]

Except that I don't think that Federalist 42 really supports that position very well, simply because it fails to address it...

[exodus]

The federal government does not have the authority to "regulate" commerce inside the individual States. The fact is that the Federal government actually does regulate commerce within individual States.

To: exodus
Your ticket is a contract, obligating you to be searched before boarding an intrastate flight.
# 622 by general_re
**********************

A written contract to submit to a search or be denied a thing of value is force. A forced contract is void under the law.

A search before an intrastate flight is a Federal regulation, not allowed in the Constitution, and thus illegal under the law.

Any search by government agents, without good cause, is against the law.

Please notice that the law says that the Federal government can not do this, but the Federal government does it anyway.

[TaZ]

"Thank you. I am intimately familiar with the Consitution and the laws derived thereof...I suggest that the Ninth Amendment gives me the right to free health care for the rest of my natural life, daily sexual favors from the female citizen of my choice, and a salary for sitting around and watching TV."

You have no comprehension of the scope, nature or context of the Constitution of the United States of America based upon such a destitute interpretation of the Ninth Amendment.

Moreover, I doubt any amount of education could remedy such an ignorant state.

[general_re]

A written contract to submit to a search or be denied a thing of value is force.

You are under no obligation to agree to that contract by buying a ticket, and hence it cannot be forced upon you. Freedom of contract is typically one of those sorts of things that libertarians point to when pining for the good old days, e.g. Lochner - surely you don't mean to suggest that people shouldn't be allowed to enter into contracts when buying an airline ticket?

A search before an intrastate flight is a Federal regulation, not allowed in the Constitution, and thus illegal under the law.

Would it make you feel better if the search were required and conducted by the local police?

Please notice that the law says that the Federal government can not do this, but the Federal government does it anyway.

A consensual search is hardly "unreasonable" under the 4'th Amendment. You are free to refuse to be searched at any time during the boarding process.

[Tauzero]

Yes it does. The power is of the harmonizing class. It is to be used to bring uniformity to the buying and selling of goods across state borders, in order to avoid the evils of myriad differences in state law -- and irregular, unjust taxes.

[general_re]

You have no comprehension of the scope, nature or context of the Constitution of the United States of America based upon such a destitute interpretation of the Ninth Amendment.

Enlighten me. How do we know what is and isn't a right under the Ninth Amendment?

[general_re]

It is to be used to bring uniformity to the buying and selling of goods across state borders, in order to avoid the evils of myriad differences in state law -- and irregular, unjust taxes.

The last 120 years or so of constitutional law disagree with you, since at least US v. E.C. Knight in 1887. If you would like to discuss what the law should be, I am game - up until this point, I have been discussing what the law is.

[exodus]

The thrust of this article is not that pregnant women should never be searched. The complaint has to do with the public disrobing, and the public groping, of this man's wife.

To: exodus
So if the searches are conducted in private, you have no objection? Hell, why didn't you say so in the first place - I can certainly agree with that...
# 624 by general_re
**********************

That was the author's opinion, not mine, general_re . The searches violate the Constitution. The searches are illegal. The searches violate our rights.

The author was mad about the government making a public spectacle of his wife. He was willing to be searched, and seemed to accept it as just a part of flying.

My fight is with the author, too. His attitude is exactly the attitude our government is trying to install by conducting random public searches. If they hadn't made his wife cry, he would have blindly gone to his friend's wedding, and probably forgotten the details of the search within days.

My problem is that our government has a policy of routinely violating our rights, from even before the Patriot Act was passed.

The Waco massacre wasn't an isolated case, it was just the most publicized instance documenting our loss of freedom.

[general_re]

The searches violate the Constitution. The searches are illegal. The searches violate our rights.

Unfortunately, I do not think those first two statements are supportable under the law as it is, and the last is a bare assertion. If, as I said above, you would like to discuss how the law should be, I am willing to discuss that as well....

[exodus]

To: exodus
I agree no one should ever have to disrobe in public. However, it is much preferred that these searches go on on public for the following reasons:
1) The visibility of the searches acts as a deterent to would-be terrorists.
2) The security people are carrying out their searches in full view of dozens of witnesses.

Public scrutiny is the best way to moderate their behavior and keep them in check. Once they take you to a back room all bets are off.
# 626 by BigBobber
**********************

That's exactly what I've been saying, BigBobber.

First, they're not security people. They're government agents.

The government agents conduct public, humiliating searches instead of private searches for one reason only - to intimidate everyone in the airport.

That's wrong, BigBobber. It's even illegal.

Our government is not authorised to conduct operations that have as their main purpose the intimidation of our citizens.

They're breaking the law.

[Tauzero]

"The last 120 years or so of constitutional law disagree with you, since at least US v. E.C. Knight in 1887."

Bad precedent is still bad.

"up until this point, I have been discussing what the law is"

Oh I'm fully aware that there have been words written down by judges that support your view.

But judges are neither the sole nor final arbiters of the law or the constitution, so I cannot agree that that is what the law is. It is merely a long-standing usurpation.

[general_re]

Out for the night...