Originally Posted by Casimir
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.
By the way, intrastate travel and interstate travel are not the same thing; and the Constitution does not give Congress powers to regulate intrastate travel. Congress has, by the Constitution, the power to regulate
interstate commerce -- not intrastate (or "instate") travel. Simple fact.
Does ADP-CDG care about US constitutional law? Probably not, at least not most all of the time. Anyone know a French lawyer specializing in French constitutional law?
Also, there are rights that exist independent of those that the Leader, Party, Government wishes us to have/not have. Like it or not, freedom of movement -- including by private means available
and affordable to a human being, such as by plane -- is a basic human right. And freedom of association -- including freedom to not associate (such as not talking to contractors at CDG) -- is a basic human right too.
Advocates of trampling upon basic human rights -- freedom of movement and association -- could find friends in authority in North Korea and Gitmo. I hear that freedom of movement and association does not exist there.
Also, closer to home, such advocates of trampling over basic human rights could "use politics or revolution or whatever the heck [they] are trying to argue for" to continue to step upon even basic human rights such as the freedom of association and movement.
It is clear what the above post and its predecessors are defending. I'm glad not to be on the insecurity side of the security fence, for there's smart security and then there's insecurity. This CDG questioning is a dog and pony show.