Originally Posted by GUWonder
Just because ABC doesn't like what it implies does not make it what ABC claims it out to be. Anything but "breathless, overwrought nonsense". It shows the absurdity in asserting the position of those who believe that the government retains rights over all that is unmentioned and uncovered by the law (including the Constitution and decisions about matters therein and thereout).
Who here practices constitutional law?
It doesn't matter much, because this is a government of the people, by the people, for the people ... and not one for the Leader or the Party or the Leader's/Party's lawyers/supporters who try to shut down others by using false appeals to authority.
Forgive me for I have sinned: the government reserves all powers over all things unmentioned, unless excluded by law (including by the body Constitution and judicial decisions).
"Carry on, citizen."
Some believe that if the government says you can only travel about by crawling on your knees through the mud that's "right" too .... since there's not an explicit law that reserves the right of the people to live like human being with dignity and travel by any and all privately available means.
.... with freedom-loving Supreme Court Justices, freedom of movement won't be further infringed upon. And as the Constitution is a living document those rights that freedom of movement-haters take away can be gotten back too (when/if taken).
Nice campaign speech, though a bit incoherent. Silly constitutional analysis.
Article I, section 8 of the constitution gives the federal government the explicit power to regulate interstate commerce. All airplane travel, including purely instate routes, fits the definition of interstate commerce under supreme court precedent. So, all of the ranting about the government depriving citizens of reserved rights ignores the fact that, from the beginning of the republic, the government has had the explicit, constitutional power to do what it is doing today when it requires ten or twenty security questions of travellers before entering an airplane.
It is clear you think this should be otherwise. Great, make it happen!!! Use politics or revolution or whatever the heck you are trying to argue for. Just quit pretending (and misleading others) that what you think the law SHOULD be is what the law IS. As far as my qualifications for commenting on the law, if you care to know mine, I'll be glad to PM them to you and we can compare, though I'm certain of the result.
I stick to my previous statement -- ridiculous, overwrought nonsense -- even when punctuated with rolling eyes and smiley faces -- is still just that.