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

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

[DAnconia55]

I quickly looked up Terry search. A stop and frisk search for weapons.

Unconstitutional, regardless of what a court says.

[general_re]

When you attempt to do this on a public roadway, you are placing MY life at risk by your conscious decision not to act in a responsible manner. You are also violating your agreement with society to safely maintain control over a motor vehicle on public roadways. For this, you may be arrested and charged.

So my right to travel isn't absolute, even if I don't actually hurt you in the process. Hey, we're making progress - we've actually moved beyond the overly simplistic "no force or fraud" definition of rights. Only took 800 posts, too...

[Blood of Tyrants]

Define 'right of privacy' for me.

That would be in the Fourth Amendment where it says that the people shall be secure in their person , their houses, their papers, and their effects and free from unreasonable search and seizure. It goes on to describe that a warrant shall be required to proceed with such a search after an oath has been sworn affirming that there IS some reason to search my papers.

Then there is that nasty old Ninth Amendment whisch basically says that just because a right isn't written in the Constitution doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. For example, the right to marry whom you choose.

Exactly WHERE does the Constitution grant the government the power to disregard the Constitution for any reason? If it doesn't how can I be compelled to relenquish my right to be secure in my person and effects in order to enjoy the freedom of the right to travel freely?

It is the antithesis of so-called "freedom" when you have to jump through the proper hoops and fill out the proper government paperwork and then have to subject yourself to a humiliating prodding and probing by government goons to excercise ypur right to travel "unhindered".

[general_re]

There are no Constitutional grounds for federal interstates or speed limits. Or drunk driving laws, for that matter.

Article I covers the creation of roads, actually. Since there are no federal speed limits or drunk-driving laws, that's a non-starter.

It's about a federal goverment that is LONG overdue for a reduction.

I agree. But part of that is choosing one's battles. This is not a good place to start.

[general_re]

By your argument then, when ONE person commits a crime, it would be legitimate to consider everyone a suspect? Thats how you are interpreting that pesky equal protection clause.

No, we trade one possible harm for another - we reduce the likelihood of hijacking by accepting consensual searches. That's the thing about real life - sometimes we have to make difficult choices, where the choice that appears to satisfy our desire for ideological purity has practical consequences that are not acceptable to most. Life is funny that way.

[general_re]

Unconstitutional, regardless of what a court says.

Opinions will vary. Yours is decidedly in the minority.

[general_re]

They will refuse me service, keep my money, have me arrested, and STILL have me searched as my refusal to submit will be used as justification for the search.

Right, well, if you demand a warrant, there's always the danger that they will actually go get one and search you without your consent. If they don't get a warrant, and thus don't search you, the airline will probably refuse to board you. If they do get a warrant, and you are searched without turning anything up, you might be allowed on a later flight, if the airline people are feeling especially generous. Choices, choices...

[BraveMan]

What concerns me is the requirement to faithfully abide by ANSI Z223.1 and NFPA 54 codes and graciously submit to the enforcing authorities. It's irresponsible of the sanctioning bodies to surreptitiously conceal this information, making it available only to the "chosen few" . . .

[MineralMan]

"First, the people ARE the government, so actually the people have ALL the rights. Second, to the point of this thread, where does it state the government has the right to harass people while traveling so as to make the sheeple feel safe?"

That's correct, and the "people," through their elected officials have decided that you need to go through a security check to get on an airplane.

[ChemistCat]

Are you unable to consider for a moment that by and large these searches are NOT consensual?

If you cannot refuse, it's as consensual as embracing Islam is for someone who is born a Saudi.

[MineralMan]

The key word that most libertarians ignore is "unreasonable." Given that hijackers took over four planes, crashing three of them into occupied buildings is what makes the airport searches "reasonable." That word is what allows Congress to pass laws requiring you to undergo searches at airports. Who decides what "reasonable" means? The "people," throught their elected legislators. It's very simple.

[general_re]

YOUR RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE. SO ARE MINE. YOURS END WHERE MINE BEGIN.

I can't help it if you insist on sticking to a doctrine that is inherently self-contradictory. "Absolute" means "without limit", and here you are arguing for limits on "absolute" rights....

[RGSpincich]

Are you unable to consider for a moment that by and large these searches are NOT consensual?

Stay away from courtrooms and airports. They have signs in front of each warning of impending searches. You imply consent by proceeding to the search points.

[MineralMan]

"Are you unable to consider for a moment that by and large these searches are NOT consensual?

If you cannot refuse, it's as consensual as embracing Islam is for someone who is born a Saudi."

Of course you can refuse. You know in advance that you will be searched, magnetically, at a minimum, if you go to an airport to take a flight. You know this. Therefore, by so doing, you consent to the search. To avoid the search, you simply avoid airports and flying. You consent because you are already aware of the search requirement. If you are not aware, then you will be informed at the airport by clearly visible signs that you are subject to search if you fly.

You consent by taking the flight. Sorry.

[general_re]

Are you unable to consider for a moment that by and large these searches are NOT consensual?

Sure they are. You don't have a constitutional right to fly on an airplane that doesn't belong to you, so you are subject to some terms and conditions in order to book a flight. One of those terms is that you consent to a search. If you don't consent to a search by not booking a flight, no airport screener will come to your house and forcibly search you. Really. I promise.

[general_re]

I keep telling them that they ought to try to persuade people that consensual searches in the airports are unreasonable, so that the law might be changed to reflect that. So far, no dice...