Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

A pat down that ended my wife up in the ER

A pat down that ended my wife up in the ER

Old Aug 11, 2012, 2:35 pm
  #181  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,523
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
Yes, it does. Have you read the Declaration of Indepence recently? It says "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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,".

Now, if you want to argue that recent court decisions may have been ignoring that principle, I might agree with you, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It's clear to many people that it reflects the intent of the drafters of the Constitution, which they meant to be interpreted consistent with that intent.
Wrong...If the US followed the doctrine of natural law we wouldn't have debates over SSM, union bargaining etc. The ideals espoused by the UNUDHR are just that ideals, nothing more.
SWCPHX is offline  
Old Aug 11, 2012, 2:45 pm
  #182  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by SWCPHX
Wrong...If the US followed the doctrine of natural law we wouldn't have debates over SSM, union bargaining etc. The ideals espoused by the UNUDHR are just that ideals, nothing more.
RichardKenner is correct, as is only more obvious to those who properly read the words of the nation's founding fathers.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Aug 11, 2012, 2:52 pm
  #183  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,523
Originally Posted by GUWonder
RichardKenner is correct, as is only more obvious to those who properly read the words of the nation's founding fathers.
Sorry, but I'm going to argue that the US does not follow a strict doctrine of natural law and that the UNUDHR has no bearing on US laws, policies, or procedures. It's a feel good happy fluffy document nothing more.
SWCPHX is offline  
Old Aug 11, 2012, 3:15 pm
  #184  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by SWCPHX
Sorry, but I'm going to argue that the US does not follow a strict doctrine of natural law and that the UNUDHR has no bearing on US laws, policies, or procedures. It's a feel good happy fluffy document nothing more.
You are arguing against arguments of your own creation, so carry on arguing however you like.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Aug 11, 2012, 5:15 pm
  #185  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by SWCPHX
Wrong...If the US followed the doctrine of natural law we wouldn't have debates over SSM, union bargaining etc. The ideals espoused by the UNUDHR are just that ideals, nothing more.
I wasn't arguing that the US fully adopted the ideals of the UNUDHR, but rather that the concept of natural law is indeed built in to our legal system.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Aug 11, 2012, 6:56 pm
  #186  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,523
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
I wasn't arguing that the US fully adopted the ideals of the UNUDHR, but rather that the concept of natural law is indeed built in to our legal system.
The concept of it sure, but we've migrated pretty far away from natural law and natural rights and to quote the UNUDHR as an example of a "right to fly" is just silly.
SWCPHX is offline  
Old Aug 11, 2012, 7:23 pm
  #187  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,317
Originally Posted by SWCPHX
The concept of it sure, but we've migrated pretty far away from natural law and natural rights and to quote the UNUDHR as an example of a "right to fly" is just silly.
1) The legal basis of the right to fly, as enshrined in US law, has already been listed in this thread. Arguing against it after it's already been put forth is just silly.

2) The idea that the US doesn't recognize natural law and natural rights is just silly. It's enshrined in US law in the 9th Amendment, the intent of which can be clearly seen when you look at the Declaration of Independence, which was written by mostly the same people only 11 years earlier.

TSA violates that concept on a regular basis, and has jumped through numerous legal hoops to prevent the specific methodologies of scope and grope screening from going before a federal court, which says to me that they are well aware of it's illegality and un-Constitutionality but are too scared to risk having it declared such in court.
WillCAD is offline  
Old Aug 11, 2012, 7:53 pm
  #188  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,523
Originally Posted by WillCAD
1) The legal basis of the right to fly, as enshrined in US law, has already been listed in this thread. Arguing against it after it's already been put forth is just silly.
Please cite a court case that stated somebody has the "right to fly". What is constantly cited, 49 CFR part 27, is the right to equal access of air facilities for disabled people, it's not a right to fly. And the other section for a person to move through navigable airspace is not an inherent right to fly either.

Originally Posted by WillCAD
2) The idea that the US doesn't recognize natural law and natural rights is just silly. It's enshrined in US law in the 9th Amendment, the intent of which can be clearly seen when you look at the Declaration of Independence, which was written by mostly the same people only 11 years earlier.
And the 9th Amendment was pretty much challenged successfully in US Public Workers vs Mitchell and Oklahoma vs Civil Service Commission no? The Federal government has the ability to restrain rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Basically flying is a privilege, not a right.

Originally Posted by WillCAD
TSA violates that concept on a regular basis, and has jumped through numerous legal hoops to prevent the specific methodologies of scope and grope screening from going before a federal court, which says to me that they are well aware of it's illegality and un-Constitutionality but are too scared to risk having it declared such in court.
And yet it occurs in airports everyday around the country in full view of Federal Courts that could put a stop to it with injunctions. I dislike the TSA as much as most people but around here but some of the folks on here are not doing any favors in getting it shut down with the usual hyperbole, misguided opinions, and relying on silly pithy statements from the UN.
SWCPHX is offline  
Old Aug 11, 2012, 11:03 pm
  #189  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,317
Originally Posted by SWCPHX
Please cite a court case that stated somebody has the "right to fly". What is constantly cited, 49 CFR part 27, is the right to equal access of air facilities for disabled people, it's not a right to fly. And the other section for a person to move through navigable airspace is not an inherent right to fly either.
The Privileges and Immunities clause (Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1) and upheld repeatedly by the US Supreme Court (U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)), establishes the peoples' right to unobstructed interstate travel.

Originally Posted by SWCPHX
And the 9th Amendment was pretty much challenged successfully in US Public Workers vs Mitchell and Oklahoma vs Civil Service Commission no? The Federal government has the ability to restrain rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Basically flying is a privilege, not a right.
I am not a lawyer or a legal scholar of any kind, but my understanding of that case is that it was based on the idea that those employed by the federal government may have their freedom of speech muzzled in order to prevent the perception - or reality - that government was influencing or coercing the people, since it's the people who are supposed to be in charge, not the government.

Violating peoples' civil rights in order to advance government interest not only doesn't fall under that category, it flies directly in its face; the restrictions on individual rights of a limited number of people in the Mitchell decision was considered to be a restriction on government, not on the people. TSA's violation of the 4th Amendment is a restriction on the people themselves.

By the way - whether you believe there is a right to fly or not makes no difference whatsoever. TSA's scope and grope methodology doesn't violate one's right to fly, it violates a specifically enumerated right set forth in the 4th Amendment, the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. That right doesn't say, "except when engaged in voluntary activity" or "only when you're exercising one of your other rights." It's a blanket statement - the government may not execute unreasonable searches or seizures against the people without warrant or probable cause.

Originally Posted by SWCPHX
And yet it occurs in airports everyday around the country in full view of Federal Courts that could put a stop to it with injunctions. I dislike the TSA as much as most people but around here but some of the folks on here are not doing any favors in getting it shut down with the usual hyperbole, misguided opinions, and relying on silly pithy statements from the UN.
Do federal courts issue injunctions without a specific complaintant? can a judge on the bench simply issue an injunction against something if he, let's say, sees it on the news, or witnesses it himself? I was under the impression that an actual charge or suit had to be heard by a court before the court could take such an action. And TSA has jumped through legal hoops to prevent any such case from being heard in any federal court.

But, as I said, I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps one of the legal eagles could chime in here and clarify.

-----------------------------------------------------

One more thing.

We can debate legal technicalities and sound bites all we want, but when it comes down to brass tacks, what the TSA is doing with the scope and grope methodology, the harassment of innocent people, the lack of public accountability for its actions, and the blatant disregard for the rights of the individual in the name of a nebulous form of safety from a poorly-defined, minimal threat, is wrong. It's unethical and immoral in the extreme, whether it's legal in the convoluted mess of the CFR notwithstanding. It's wrong, no matter how you justify it or rationalize it. It's just wrong.

Slavery was legal. The Holocaust was legal. The Crusades were legal. The Inquisition was legal. Stalin's purges were legal. The extermination of native peoples in the Americas was legal. Everyone who perpetrated those things thought they were justified. But all of those things were wrong.

Something that's wrong is always wrong, whether it's legal or not. Ask anyone who has studied history - the wrongs of today will be clucked over, and anyone who accepts those wrongs will be laughed at, pitied, or outright hated, by the people of tomorrow.
WillCAD is offline  
Old Aug 12, 2012, 12:07 am
  #190  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,523
Originally Posted by WillCAD
The Privileges and Immunities clause (Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1) and upheld repeatedly by the US Supreme Court (U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)), establishes the peoples' right to unobstructed interstate travel.
Fail, right to travel does not equate right to fly. You and I don't have to seek permission before entering another state or taking up residence there, that's what Shapiro vs. Thompson said. A state can't deny your ability to travel through it or take up residence there, that's all. Furthermore, a state can't deny your ability to up and leave time you want. Again, no "right to fly".
SWCPHX is offline  
Old Aug 12, 2012, 6:41 am
  #191  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
First, IANAL, but here goes anyway.

It is not whether we have a right to fly or not. The question is whether it is within the enumerated powers of congress to pass a law that restricts our ability to travel within the states by any means.
InkUnderNails is offline  
Old Aug 12, 2012, 8:28 am
  #192  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,317
Originally Posted by SWCPHX
Fail, right to travel does not equate right to fly. You and I don't have to seek permission before entering another state or taking up residence there, that's what Shapiro vs. Thompson said. A state can't deny your ability to travel through it or take up residence there, that's all. Furthermore, a state can't deny your ability to up and leave time you want. Again, no "right to fly".
Fail.

Please cite a court case or portion of the Constitution which specifically grants the federal government the power to deny travel to anyone - by any means they choose - without due process.

Please cite a court case or portion of the Constitution which says that the people don't have a right to travel - by any means they choose - without some sort of travel permission or permit process imposed by the government.
WillCAD is offline  
Old Aug 12, 2012, 8:41 am
  #193  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,523
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails
First, IANAL, but here goes anyway.

It is not whether we have a right to fly or not. The question is whether it is within the enumerated powers of congress to pass a law that restricts our ability to travel within the states by any means.
Of course they do. The "right to travel" isn't any different from the "right to bear arms", the government has the ability to regulate it and place restrictions on it.

And what do you do for the poor Hawaiian islanders, Guamanians, or Puerto Ricans? If they have a "right to fly" as residents/citizens of US states and territories shouldn't we as taxpayers be subsidizing that or providing equal access just as we do to disabled passengers? Honestly I think that some clever Hawaiian could make a claim that the US is violating equal protection clauses. Thanks to the interstate highway system, us mainlanders can hop in a car or a bus and be across the country in a few days, Hawaiians can't do that. Neither can they take subsidized Amtrak to travel interstate.
SWCPHX is offline  
Old Aug 12, 2012, 8:43 am
  #194  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,523
Originally Posted by WillCAD
Fail.

Please cite a court case or portion of the Constitution which specifically grants the federal government the power to deny travel to anyone - by any means they choose - without due process.

Please cite a court case or portion of the Constitution which says that the people don't have a right to travel - by any means they choose - without some sort of travel permission or permit process imposed by the government.
There isn't one and I never said that the government can deny your "right to travel", but neither does anybody have a constitutional "right to fly". We're not in disagreement.
SWCPHX is offline  
Old Aug 12, 2012, 8:45 am
  #195  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern California, in the redwoods, on the ocean.
Posts: 437
"One more thing.

We can debate legal technicalities and sound bites all we want, but when it comes down to brass tacks, what the TSA is doing with the scope and grope methodology, the harassment of innocent people, the lack of public accountability for its actions, and the blatant disregard for the rights of the individual in the name of a nebulous form of safety from a poorly-defined, minimal threat, is wrong. It's unethical and immoral in the extreme, whether it's legal in the convoluted mess of the CFR notwithstanding. It's wrong, no matter how you justify it or rationalize it. It's just wrong.

Slavery was legal. The Holocaust was legal. The Crusades were legal. The Inquisition was legal. Stalin's purges were legal. The extermination of native peoples in the Americas was legal. Everyone who perpetrated those things thought they were justified. But all of those things were wrong.

Something that's wrong is always wrong, whether it's legal or not. Ask anyone who has studied history - the wrongs of today will be clucked over, and anyone who accepts those wrongs will be laughed at, pitied, or outright hated, by the people of tomorrow."

^^^^^Standing applause loud and long! Standing, oh standing applause!!!^^^^^
WindOfFreedom is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.