Originally Posted by Casimir

What a bunch of breathless, overwrought nonsense. Posts such as the above and others that point out that airplanes were not invented when the constitution was written state the obvious and display ignorance of constitutional law. (Moreover, save the political demogoguery for OMNI, as my analysis is fundamental constitutional law and has nothing to do with political parties and their choices for the Supreme Court.)

Originally Posted by Casimir

First, the constitution is subject to amendment, so the fact that it was drafted over 200 years ago does not preclude the word airplane from appearing in it. My question -- which was in part tongue in cheek -- was intended to establish the point that it does not appear there, and is therefore not part of the written constitution.

Second, I also requested where in Supreme Court precedent such a right had been declared. There are many rights -- including those to sexual privacy the poster cited with righteous indignation -- that have been recognized by the Supreme Court. That's why I asked for a case cite, and I'm still waiting for one. Sorry -- if a right does not appear in the constitution either explicitly or because the Supreme Court has declared it, it is not a constutional "right." Those of you that have not studied law ought to have a bit more humility before spouting off, because some of these rantings are embarrassing.

As to the case that cites a "right to travel" posted in another post, I myself have stated that there is such a right, and that it was established by Supreme Court precedent. Thanks for a case that affirms that longstanding right. Now, please try to understand what this means.

The government may not pass a law that prevents me from travelling from MEM to ATL. That does not mean -- and many seem unable to grasp this particular point -- that I have a "right" to travel from MEM to ATL by airplane. If there were such a "right," people who were grounded on 9/11 without reaching their destinations would have a cause of action against the federal government for depriving them of their constitutional rights.

Moreover, even if there WERE a constitutional right to interstate AIRPLANE travel, that right would be no more immune to government regulation than free speech or other constitutional rights are. Though I have the right to free speech, I may not exercise that right whenever, wherever or however I like. Please try to understand this very basic and commonsense point!

Thus, for those who say that ten or twenty security questions before getting on an airplane, no matter how annoying, "ought" to be unconstitutional because somehow it abridges your right to travel, that argument will never, ever work no matter how hard you wish it would.

In short, I am making a very simple point, to-wit: Those that somehow see the leading edge of tyranny in such practices are misguided in my opinion, but if you really believe that, you should use the political process (including the amendment process) to change the rules, because there is zero chance you will prevail in court with a "rights" argument.

Now if there's anyone out there that actually practices constitutional law and wishes to correct me, I am more than willing to admit I'm wrong, but please provide precedent instead of invective.

Originally Posted by Casimir

Please show me where, in the Constitution or by Supreme Court precedent, there is a constitutional "right" to airplane travel, interstate or instate.

You will search in vain. If such travel has not been declared a "right" under the constitution, it is a privilege and it may be regulated. You have NO RIGHT to insist that you be given access to an airplane, except under the contract you have with the airline, which is subject to the government's security regulations.

The Supreme Court long ago declared interstate travel a constitutional right, subject like all such rights to regulation. Free speech, for example, is subject to reasonable time place and manner restrictions. I don't know about the parade of horribles scenario you posit, but it is clearly constitutional for the government to ask a series of questions before letting someone on a plane.

You are correct that whether the government may do it and whether it's a good idea are two separate questions. I am not addressing the latter point. I don't care much what other people's opinions are on that point on an internet bulletin board, even one as good as this one. I DO care when people (not you) misrepresent the law and assert yet another "right" that doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by GUWonder

Where in the Constitution does it say that an American has a right to sexual activity without having it filmed by the government and distributed on the internet regardless of their desires? According to the same rationale as laid out above, the government has a right to do that too. Pretty? Not. Or is your kind of rationale one that the newly appointed SC justices would go along with? Would that make you happy? It wouldn't me; but then again, it's not I who presume the government has rights to all that is undeclared in the Constitution.

I tend to think that those powers specifically assigned, in the Constitution, to the government -- and no more -- are within its sphere. And everything else is within the sphere of each and every individual American citizen.

I'm not going to be a subject. I'm a citizen.

If someone else wants a police state -- and likes being a state subject -- North Korea will make them a good home. I hear they like interrogations ... including before and after travel.