A pat down that ended my wife up in the ER
#196
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Nor does it specifically equate to:
right to walk
right to ride a horse
right to ride a bicycle
right to ride a train/bus
right to board a boat
right to go by road (OK, you need a license to do that).
It encompasses all of the above. Repeat: all of the above.
There are conditions and behaviors attached to some, if not all, of them and for air travel that includes being subjected to a security check. If a passenger complies with the security (and airlines' conditions) he/she has the uncontestible right to fly.
This whole quasi-argument is a canard. The reasonableness, legality and Constitutionality of the security check is the issue.
right to walk
right to ride a horse
right to ride a bicycle
right to ride a train/bus
right to board a boat
right to go by road (OK, you need a license to do that).
It encompasses all of the above. Repeat: all of the above.
There are conditions and behaviors attached to some, if not all, of them and for air travel that includes being subjected to a security check. If a passenger complies with the security (and airlines' conditions) he/she has the uncontestible right to fly.
This whole quasi-argument is a canard. The reasonableness, legality and Constitutionality of the security check is the issue.
#197
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,114
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../116/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
Kent v. Dulles
No. 481
Argued April 10, 1958
Decided June 16, 1958
357 U.S. 116
(a) The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 357 U. S. 125-127.
U.S. Supreme Court
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
Kent v. Dulles
No. 481
Argued April 10, 1958
Decided June 16, 1958
357 U.S. 116
(a) The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 357 U. S. 125-127.
The only restriction to travel is agreeing to the contract of terms if traveling by commercial means. There is certainly no requirement that government assist a person with a means or cost of travel. The right to travel, by any means, is secured by stepping foot on U.S. soil. To lose that right will take legal action as is the case when a person is incarcerated for a crime.
The Right to Travel, by air, by train, by car, by foot, or by any other means now known or to be known in the future can be found in these words;
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.
You can continue arguing that a right to travel by air or any other means does not exist, but in the United States you are wrong!
#198
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LGA, JFK
Posts: 1,018
Of course they [the members of the U.S. Congress, as the U.S. Congress] do [have enumerated powers to pass a law that restricts our ability to travel within the states by any means]. 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.
We individuals have "the right" to do anything we wish to, so long as we don't infringe upon "the rights" of others. We have empowered the U.S. Government to enforce those "rights" to a certain, limited degree. The U.S. Government does not have "the power" to regulate or place restrictions on our travelling beyond those powers, and certainly not to infringe upon the enumerated rights itemized in the U.S. Constitution.
#199
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,616
Do all of you realize how much authority the Feds exercised over air travel prior to deregulation? Routes, schedules, fares, etc. Sorry but the Government can place just about whatever restrictions they want on air travel and right now, unfortunately, the TSA is one of them. You could take away the TSA and Congress could impose a tax of $100/ticket for example. Because traveling by air is seen as a choice and is not the only option available for most of us, the ability to restrict access to it is not as limited.
#200
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,616
Right to travel, yes, the privilege of traveling by any specific method is subject to rules and regulations that the Government clears has the power to enact and enforce.
#201
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,616
Incorrect. This is the point. Those "enumerated powers" and that "ability" are nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution.
We individuals have "the right" to do anything we wish to, so long as we don't infringe upon "the rights" of others. We have empowered the U.S. Government to enforce those "rights" to a certain, limited degree. The U.S. Government does not have "the power" to regulate or place restrictions on our travelling beyond those powers, and certainly not to infringe upon the enumerated rights itemized in the U.S. Constitution.
We individuals have "the right" to do anything we wish to, so long as we don't infringe upon "the rights" of others. We have empowered the U.S. Government to enforce those "rights" to a certain, limited degree. The U.S. Government does not have "the power" to regulate or place restrictions on our travelling beyond those powers, and certainly not to infringe upon the enumerated rights itemized in the U.S. Constitution.
Last edited by SWCPHX; Aug 12, 2012 at 10:14 am Reason: Added example
#202
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Of course, that case wasn't unanimous, and there were dissenting opinions written by two justices warning that such restrictions on government employees constituted a gross violation of their 1st Amendment rights.
But, in a roundabout way, your argument actually proves itself wrong - the reason why that case was upheld was that the free expression of political speech by government employees was seen as a form of government self-promotion, possibly even coercion, which could be the beginning of a long, dark road of government telling the people how they should vote under the guise of "free speech". Which was, of course, considered a case where the free exercise of the government employees' rights was thought to infringe upon the free exercise of everyone else's rights, and is thus limited.
#203
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,616
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do see it that way, although the SCOTUS case you cited above contradicts my opinion.
Of course, that case wasn't unanimous, and there were dissenting opinions written by two justices warning that such restrictions on government employees constituted a gross violation of their 1st Amendment rights.
But, in a roundabout way, your argument actually proves itself wrong - the reason why that case was upheld was that the free expression of political speech by government employees was seen as a form of government self-promotion, possibly even coercion, which could be the beginning of a long, dark road of government telling the people how they should vote under the guise of "free speech". Which was, of course, considered a case where the free exercise of the government employees' rights was thought to infringe upon the free exercise of everyone else's rights, and is thus limited.
Of course, that case wasn't unanimous, and there were dissenting opinions written by two justices warning that such restrictions on government employees constituted a gross violation of their 1st Amendment rights.
But, in a roundabout way, your argument actually proves itself wrong - the reason why that case was upheld was that the free expression of political speech by government employees was seen as a form of government self-promotion, possibly even coercion, which could be the beginning of a long, dark road of government telling the people how they should vote under the guise of "free speech". Which was, of course, considered a case where the free exercise of the government employees' rights was thought to infringe upon the free exercise of everyone else's rights, and is thus limited.
#204
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 129
At the end of the day the government can do whatever the heck it wants to do in the name of National security, they're free and clear thanks to the laws they've put on the books.The laws might be immoral, go against our constitution, and might eventually be challenged, but they're currently legal.
Do I think pat downs are ridiculous? Yes, and I feel they should be a last resort option.
Do I think people should be exempt from them if that's the current security protocol? No, because if you make exceptions the terrorists will use them to bypass security.
The key for effective security protocols is to switch it up so that the TSA agents don't get complacent doing the same thing over and over again.
#205
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
For example, terminating employees who engage in deliberately punitive actions during an opt-out grope-down would be a really good start.
#206
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
No, you need a license to be the driver of a vehicle on a road, not to be in the vehicle, which is exactly the same situation as an airplane.
That being said, my understanding of the current state of the law is that courts have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of travel to a right of travel by air. There are some cases out there that are trying to do that by arguing that that's the only practical way for some people to travel. But those cases are years from being decided.
That being said, my understanding of the current state of the law is that courts have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of travel to a right of travel by air. There are some cases out there that are trying to do that by arguing that that's the only practical way for some people to travel. But those cases are years from being decided.
#207
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
No, you need a license to be the driver of a vehicle on a road, not to be in the vehicle, which is exactly the same situation as an airplane.
That being said, my understanding of the current state of the law is that courts have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of travel to a right of travel by air. There are some cases out there that are trying to do that by arguing that that's the only practical way for some people to travel. But those cases are years from being decided.
That being said, my understanding of the current state of the law is that courts have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of travel to a right of travel by air. There are some cases out there that are trying to do that by arguing that that's the only practical way for some people to travel. But those cases are years from being decided.
Some courts (supra) have all but confirmed the existence of that specific right without actually saying so. Typical gutless state of today's judiciary (in general) and I believe these cases will be strung out so as to avoid having to make a decision, one that should be self-evident. Under a different, calmer climate it would be a no-brainer.
#208
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,616
No, you need a license to be the driver of a vehicle on a road, not to be in the vehicle, which is exactly the same situation as an airplane.
That being said, my understanding of the current state of the law is that courts have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of travel to a right of travel by air. There are some cases out there that are trying to do that by arguing that that's the only practical way for some people to travel. But those cases are years from being decided.
That being said, my understanding of the current state of the law is that courts have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of travel to a right of travel by air. There are some cases out there that are trying to do that by arguing that that's the only practical way for some people to travel. But those cases are years from being decided.
#209
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
That no court has definitively ruled on the existence of the right to fly also means no court has ruled there is no such right.
All we have are our own opinions. Asserting them as fact is spurious.
All we have are our own opinions. Asserting them as fact is spurious.
#210
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LGA, JFK
Posts: 1,018
No, you need a license to be the driver of a vehicle on a road, not to be in the vehicle, which is exactly the same situation as an airplane.
That being said, my understanding of the current state of the law is that courts have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of travel to a right of travel by air. There are some cases out there that are trying to do that by arguing that that's the only practical way for some people to travel. But those cases are years from being decided.
That being said, my understanding of the current state of the law is that courts have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of travel to a right of travel by air. There are some cases out there that are trying to do that by arguing that that's the only practical way for some people to travel. But those cases are years from being decided.
If an airline wishes to sell me a ticket on one of its flights, and I wish to buy and use it, the U.S. Government can interfere with us only insofar as the U.S. Constitution permits it to. Defined powers, and specific (among other, unspecified) rights.
Simply ask: "Where is that written down?"