Wally Bird

Nor does it specifically equate to:
right to walk
right to ride a horse
right to ride a bicycle
right to ride a train/bus
right to board a boat
right to go by road (OK, you need a license to do that).

It encompasses all of the above. Repeat: all of the above.
There are conditions and behaviors attached to some, if not all, of them and for air travel that includes being subjected to a security check. If a passenger complies with the security (and airlines' conditions) he/she has the uncontestible right to fly.

This whole quasi-argument is a canard. The reasonableness, legality and Constitutionality of the security check is the issue.

Boggie Dog

In an earlier post I submitted evidence to the Right to Travel, for clarity sake I will post the information once again.

Please note the decision does not define a means of travel, that decision is left to the individual. Also, the United States Constitution does not grant rights to citizens, it limits government. You seem to have a difficult time understanding that point.

The only restriction to travel is agreeing to the contract of terms if traveling by commercial means. There is certainly no requirement that government assist a person with a means or cost of travel. The right to travel, by any means, is secured by stepping foot on U.S. soil. To lose that right will take legal action as is the case when a person is incarcerated for a crime.

The Right to Travel, by air, by train, by car, by foot, or by any other means now known or to be known in the future can be found in these words;

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You can continue arguing that a right to travel by air or any other means does not exist, but in the United States you are wrong!

GaryD

Incorrect. This is the point. Those "enumerated powers" and that "ability" are nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution.

We individuals have "the right" to do anything we wish to, so long as we don't infringe upon "the rights" of others. We have empowered the U.S. Government to enforce those "rights" to a certain, limited degree. The U.S. Government does not have "the power" to regulate or place restrictions on our travelling beyond those powers, and certainly not to infringe upon the enumerated rights itemized in the U.S. Constitution.

SWCPHX

Do all of you realize how much authority the Feds exercised over air travel prior to deregulation? Routes, schedules, fares, etc. Sorry but the Government can place just about whatever restrictions they want on air travel and right now, unfortunately, the TSA is one of them. You could take away the TSA and Congress could impose a tax of $100/ticket for example. Because traveling by air is seen as a choice and is not the only option available for most of us, the ability to restrict access to it is not as limited.

SWCPHX

Right to travel, yes, the privilege of traveling by any specific method is subject to rules and regulations that the Government clears has the power to enact and enforce.

SWCPHX

Wrong. The litmus test is not simply that whatever we wish to do does not infringe on the rights of others. For example, as a municipal employee I am prohibited from displaying a candidate's campaign sign in my yard. First Amendment violation anyone?

WillCAD

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do see it that way, although the SCOTUS case you cited above contradicts my opinion.

Of course, that case wasn't unanimous, and there were dissenting opinions written by two justices warning that such restrictions on government employees constituted a gross violation of their 1st Amendment rights.

But, in a roundabout way, your argument actually proves itself wrong - the reason why that case was upheld was that the free expression of political speech by government employees was seen as a form of government self-promotion, possibly even coercion, which could be the beginning of a long, dark road of government telling the people how they should vote under the guise of "free speech". Which was, of course, considered a case where the free exercise of the government employees' rights was thought to infringe upon the free exercise of everyone else's rights, and is thus limited.

SWCPHX

In a way I agree with you, however, the law doesn't make any exception if I never tell my neighbors who I work for or if I flat out lie to them and tell them I work for Target, Wal-Mart, QT, or anybody else for that matter. During the era of political patronage and employment being hand in hand, I could see a need for a control on a government employee's right to post signs or what have you on their own property but the times have changed. I don't think that there is a coercive aspect associated with my right to post a candidate's sign in my yard.

serioustraveler

Times have changed because of the controls in place, get rid of the controls and you're back at square 1.

At the end of the day the government can do whatever the heck it wants to do in the name of National security, they're free and clear thanks to the laws they've put on the books.The laws might be immoral, go against our constitution, and might eventually be challenged, but they're currently legal.

Do I think pat downs are ridiculous? Yes, and I feel they should be a last resort option.

Do I think people should be exempt from them if that's the current security protocol? No, because if you make exceptions the terrorists will use them to bypass security.

The key for effective security protocols is to switch it up so that the TSA agents don't get complacent doing the same thing over and over again.

Caradoc

Well, that and having TSA employ people who're capable of understanding the whys and wherefores of the policies and procedures they agree to administer in the course of their employment, and who're smart enough to decline to perform procedures that serve no meaningful purpose or are overly intrusive.

For example, terminating employees who engage in deliberately punitive actions during an opt-out grope-down would be a really good start.

RichardKenner

No, you need a license to be the driver of a vehicle on a road, not to be in the vehicle, which is exactly the same situation as an airplane.

That being said, my understanding of the current state of the law is that courts have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of travel to a right of travel by air. There are some cases out there that are trying to do that by arguing that that's the only practical way for some people to travel. But those cases are years from being decided.

Wally Bird

Yeah I should have worded it better.

Some courts (supra) have all but confirmed the existence of that specific right without actually saying so. Typical gutless state of today's judiciary (in general) and I believe these cases will be strung out so as to avoid having to make a decision, one that should be self-evident. Under a different, calmer climate it would be a no-brainer.

SWCPHX

This should be a sticky.

Wally Bird

That no court has definitively ruled on the existence of the right to fly also means no court has ruled there is no such right.

All we have are our own opinions. Asserting them as fact is spurious.

GaryD

Courts also have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of walking down the street to a right of walking down the street with one's arms raised high.

If an airline wishes to sell me a ticket on one of its flights, and I wish to buy and use it, the U.S. Government can interfere with us only insofar as the U.S. Constitution permits it to. Defined powers, and specific (among other, unspecified) rights.

Simply ask: "Where is that written down?"