Da law is da law. Should I quote US Code again?

Remember the 9th amendment as well. You have more rights than you imagine.

For most, apparently it should be, "you have more rights than you want."

Sadly, not even 300 years into this country we already have a lot of people who want less freedom than the founders intended.

Or is it just limited to the limited means our founding fathers had at the time? That'd be horse, wagon, or foot. Maybe a raft if you wanted to go down stream.

Damn them for not thinking of planes!

OK. I think we're in violent agreement on this point.

xxxxx

I'm sure that they don't. It doesn't mean it isn't usurped though.

Uh, Spiff, those civil rights you speak of apply to the interaction of the government on all levels with its citizens...airlines are under no obligation to not "violate" your civil rights, barring those situations addressed by the G, such as discriminatory practices (race, sex, etc.). They could require you to fly in boxer shorts and pack your belongings in a plastic trashbag if they so desired. That's why they have those nice contracts of carriage.

By the way, Bart nailed this issue. Until another court decides otherwise, y'all are cryin' over spilt milk.

PS Thanks Bart! The naysayers will still pout over this and implied consent (uh, think that one's already stood the test of time). Damn, wish I lived in a country where I could just go out, get drunk, raise hell, get behind the wheel and be free from them pesky damn coppers! Uh, yeah, almost forgot, I wish that after I got in my car, I could drive my drunk self to the nearest airport, and exercise my unalienable right to put myself on a commercial aircraft and travel to wherever my heart desires. While we're at it, I think I should be able to bring my 9" Bowie, two hand grenades, my sawed-off shotgun, and a crossbow. Friggin' government ruins everything!

Happy Flyin' all!



"Wherever You Go, There You Are"

Sure you have a right to travel around the country. You do not have a right to use the services of a privately owned airline to fly on their privately owned aircraft.

So you agree then that air travel is a right?

I agree with you that you don't have a positive right that you can enforce against airlines (i.e. you cannot make them give you a seat on a plane). I do think there is a negative right to air travel (meaning that the government cannot take it away without some reasonable due process).

Same thing with free speech - you have a negative right to it. You can't force anyone to listen, but you also can't lose it arbitrarily at the whim of a government clerk or bureaucrat.

But do front-line TSOs have the ability to unilaterally decide that someone is not going to fly?

If so, then they can make that threat implicitly, they just aren't allowed to say so.

You might want to learn the difference between civil rights (which you have correctly identified as airlines not being able to violate) and civil liberties, which would be the more correct classification of those crazy examples of possible CoC conditions that no one would ever willingly agree to.

Thankfully, not all people agree with this defeatest attitude. If they did, the world would be a completely different place, probably for the worse. In World War II people said that Hitler's juggernaut couldn't be stopped; then in the Cold War they said we were all going to be communists eventually, so we might as well give in to that juggernaut, too.

Today, we hear the, "our rights and liberties are going down the toilet, so you might as well give in to it" mantra. Well, not all of us are going to let things go down the toilet so easily.

Implied consent is not a blank check, by the way. There may be implied consent to a search for bombs when you board an airplane. That does not mean implied consent to unreasonable restrictions, detentions, searches or seizures.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't gone back and looked through the whole code (not even sure if that's the right terminology). However, the above sections appear to me to be written in specific reference to the American with Disabilities Act (or similar legislation). One thing I do know for sure is that the entirety of the written legal system is a messy, often self-contradictory jumble (or why else would we need lawyers). I'm sure there are other sections that absolutely contradict this one, and are far more relevant.

Now, I'm not in favor of pointless harassment as an impedement to travel, but it is simply misleading to quote out-of-context. You're stooping to the level of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

(Sorry if I'm wrong.)

And hopefully someday implied consent will be declared illegal and those responsible for this disgusting little un-American procedure will receive the vilification they so richly deserve.

Thank you, Spiff, for the legal education. The ridiculous examples provided were meant to be humerous.

Oh, I do know the difference. Here my friend is the definition of "Civil Rights."

"The protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all U.S. citizens by the Constitution and Bill of Rights."

Again, it case it wasn't clear...this applies to the interaction of the Government with the citizenry...DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE ENTITIES!