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

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

[exodus]

To: general_re
The word 'regulate' in the context of the constitution means to make regular, not control. Furthermore, the security regulations do not regulate the buying and selling of goods or services (i.e. commerce.) The commerce clause does not give grounds for them.
# 627 by Tauzero
**********************

Our Federal government has been abusing the Commerce Clause for decades.

They even executed Timothy McVeigh under the Commerce Clause.

The government contended that blowing up a building interferes with interstate commerce.

[general_re]

Okay, after this, I really am out for the night ;)

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.

No, I agree - the people are the final arbiters of the law and the Constitution. However, that hardly gives you much cover, since the people seem quite content with the general trend of constitutional interpretations produced by the courts. But, if you persuade enough people of the rightness of your position, then it will be so. The best way to do that might be to discuss how the law should be, rather than trying to persuade people that your interpretion represents the law as it is...

[general_re]

You guys are killing me here - I need to sleep ;)

They even executed Timothy McVeigh under the Commerce Clause.

The government contended that blowing up a building interferes with interstate commerce.

Hardly. 18 USC 51, §1114 does not rely on the Commerce Clause.

[exodus]

To: exodus
Thank you. I am intimately familiar with the Consitution and the laws derived thereof. The Ninth Amendment is a dead letter for eminently practical reasons - namely, there is no practical way to distinguish what is and is not a right under the Ninth Amendment. You assert that the Ninth Amendment frees you from having to be searched before boarding. 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. Unfortunately for both of us, the Ninth Amendment does not speak to which of us is correct in our assertions of our rights - indeed, we both could be right under the rather spare language of the Ninth Amendment...
# 634 by general_re
**********************

I don't assert that the 9th Amendment frees me from being searched. That's the 4th Amendment.

You make no sense, general_re .

Free health care would require someone sacrifice their money or time for your benefit. Daily sexual favors from the woman of your choice would be rape. Getting a salary for doing nothing can never be confused with a God-given right.

You think that the 9th Amendment doesn't apply anymore, general_re? Do you think that the men that wrote it into law were too stupid to realize that it wasn't specific?

The 9th Amendment hasn't been repealed, general_re. It's still the law of the land.

Here's the kicker, general_re. Even if the 9th Amendment had never been written, we'd still have the right to own property. We'd still have the right to get married. We'd still have the right to decide what job we wanted to work at.

And, general_re, we'd still have the right to travel.

[exodus]

To: Tauzero
"... Both the Commerce Clause and your contract with the airlines provide adequate grounds for consensual searches before boarding a commercial flight.
# 635 by general_re
**********************

A forced agreement has no validity.

The Commerce Clause does not give Federal agents the power to conduct random searches of people who are not under suspicion of wrongdoing.

[Tauzero]

"But, if you persuade enough people of the rightness of your position, then it will be so."

Indeed.

"The best way to do that might be to discuss how the law should be, rather than trying to persuade people that your interpretion represents the law as it is..."

You can hardly hope to overthrow the current order by conceding its legitimacy.

[exodus]

"... A man who's livelihood depends on air travel has no choice. He must fly, or give up his job. If I have a three day vacation in Hawaii, the ONLY way I can go is if I fly to Hawaii. Any other method is impossible. Force is force, whether a "little" force, or a big one."

To: exodus
The fact that you don't care for the choices offered to you does not obligate society to expand the menu to cater to your personal tastes.
# 640 by general_re
**********************

It's not a restaurant, general_re.

It's unlawful force, conducted by Federal agents against Amnerican citizens.

It's against the law, general_re.

It's against the law, general_re.

[exodus]

To: exodus
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.
# 641 by TaZ To: exodus
The fact that you don't care for the choices offered to you does not obligate society to expand the menu to cater to your personal tastes.
# 640 by general_re
**********************

I've noticed, TaZ.

The only survivor is general_re, and he only survives by pretending that he doesn't understand what I've said.

[exodus]

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.

To: exodus
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. Illegal based on what? Your say-so? Point me to the language of the Constitution that makes consensual searches illegal...
# 645 by general_re
**********************

The random searches by Federal agents are illegal, general_re. Why? Because the 4th Amendment said so.

FORCED AGREEMENTS HAVE NO VALIDITY.

Why? Besides common sense, the Supreme Court said so.

[meyer]

Congressmen know this is going on. They have the power to put an end to it. And they don't.

Well, the congress that rubber-stamped the federalization of this is not in session right now. Perhaps a barrage of letters from irate citizens is in order. I don't know if it will do any good or not though.

[exodus]

You have no idea what a right is, general_re . Anything that can be regulated is not a right.

To: exodus
So my right to free speech, for example, is absolute? I am free to say anything I want, whenever and wherever I want?
# 647 by general_re
**********************

You are free to say anything you want, as long as you don't defame someone.

Since you have such a problem with the definition, a right does not give you license to intentionally harm another.

As I said, you have no idea what a right is.

[meyer]

So I asked a simple question that no one is willing to answer. How do you tell if a "pregnant" women is really pregnant and not a Muslim terrorist? This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. How are you going to do it?

Well, for starters, you can look and see if she's of middle-eastern descent.

[exodus]

To: Tauzero; general_re
Our Federal government has been abusing the Commerce Clause for decades. They even executed Timothy McVeigh under the Commerce Clause. The government contended that blowing up a building interferes with interstate commerce. 661 posted on 12/22/2002 4:16 AM CST by exodus

To: exodus
You guys are killing me here - I need to sleep ;) Hardly. 18 USC 51, §1114 does not rely on the Commerce Clause.
# 663 by general_re
**********************

Thanks, general_re. I believe that you're right on this. I had read differently, that McVeigh was tried under provisions of the Commerce Clause.

I'll look into it later. I'm too tired to think right now.

[exodus]

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

To: exodus
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?
# 652 by general_re
**********************

A contract forced on a man by denying him access to a necessary thing if he refuses to sign is void under the law.

Even if the contract wasn't void, the Federal government can't have it's agents search people without reason. That's illegal.

[exodus]

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

To: exodus
Would it make you feel better if the search were required and conducted by the local police?
# 652 by general_re
**********************

Of course not, general_re .

Local police aren't allowed to perform searches without reason, either.

[exodus]

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

To: exodus
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.
# 652 by general_re
**********************

You are free to quit your job if you don't want to be searched without reason.

You are free to give up your Hawaiian vacation if you don't want to be searched without reason.

You are free to lose your girlfriend because you didn't show up when she called for help, if you don't want to be searched without reason.

You are free to let your parent die without you at their side, if you don't want to be searched without reason.

Your definition of "free" needs a little work, general_re.

[exodus]

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.

To: TaZ
Enlighten me. How do we know what is and isn't a right under the Ninth Amendment?
# 654 by general_re
**********************

The "war" on drugs is illegal under the 9th Amendment, general_re.

The Federal government does not have the authority to prohibit the use of drugs by private citizens.

[exodus]

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

To: exodus
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....
# 657 by general_re
**********************

The law "as it is" is based upon the Constitution. Any law that does not conform with the Constitution is illegal. The searches violate the 4th Amendment.

The searches violate the Constitution. I say so because the Federal government is NOT allowed to conduct searches without cause. "It's your turn" is not a reason to search someone.

The searches violate our rights. The 4th Amendment recognizes our right of privacy. If we are searched without cause, our right has been violated.

[exodus]

"... 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.

To: Tauzero
"... No, I agree - the people are the final arbiters of the law and the Constitution. However, that hardly gives you much cover, since the people seem quite content with the general trend of constitutional interpretations produced by the courts..."
# 662 by general_re
**********************

The apathy of the people is not license to violate the Constitution. The Commerce Clause does not give Federal agents the power to conduct searches without reason.

The Commerce Clause does not give the Federal government the power to force airlines to put into each ticket an agreement to be searched at random.

A contract between an airline and a customer does not give Federal agents leave to ignore the Constitution, and conduct illegal searches without reason.

Even if the Supreme Court says it's okay, random searches of citizens is STILL illegal.

[FSPress]

Why do they need a search warrant to search someone's home. Just shut the electricity and water off and let them be free to have a choice. They can choose to be searched or they can choose to have electricity and water. You don't have a right to electricity, and you can always fetch your water in a bucket.