Originally Posted by
law dawg
Now we're getting somewhere.
This is one of the areas that I was thinking of when I posted this topic. This is one of the areas that seems to me to be butting up against the Constitution. But then, of course, we come to the question of whether or not there's a Constitutional right to fly. We obviously have a right to travel, but the conveyance itself isn't really specified. If aircraft are disallowed there are still a number of other conveyances available. They just might not be as efficient.
Or legal. I would not be surprised if many places in the US were unreachable on foot without breaking the law.
IMO any right must have an implied practicality part to it. The right to free speech is meaningless if it can only be exercised in designated zones in state capital cities. The right to travel [without ID] is meaningless if you can only exercise that right by increasing your costs (time and/or money) by a factor of 10.