Quote:
"Do you want to fly today, Comrade?"Originally Posted by United737522
It absolutely has everything to do with it. It is not up to you or anyone else to decide which rules are pointless/stupid/whatever. Security and ID checks are a part of flying, which you choose voluntarily to partake in. If you don't like it, no one is saying you have to fly. If you don't wish to partake in security checks and ID checks (which come with flying), then drive.
Screw that!
It should be up to the operating carrier, not some disgusting government entity to choose these rules.Quote:
Then, to use your argument, maybe you should consider another line of work. @:-)Originally Posted by United737522
I personally as a pilot, would not be comfortable flying an aircraft with a manifest that is potentially inaccurate.
Quote:
IDs are not required for domestic travel. The Government has said so in court. "Do You Want to Fly Today" - this is becoming a trite expression. Let me know when the bridge opens to Hawaii or the road to Juneau. Driving is not always a reasonable alternative. And if one does not have a license for the privilege of driving, then it may not be an alternative at all.Originally Posted by United737522
It absolutely has everything to do with it. It is not up to you or anyone else to decide which rules are pointless/stupid/whatever. Security and ID checks are a part of flying, which you choose voluntarily to partake in. If you don't like it, no one is saying you have to fly. If you don't wish to partake in security checks and ID checks (which come with flying), then drive.
Quote:
It blows my mind that you can construe something as simple as showing an ID as harassment. Honestly, I am speechless.Originally Posted by Spiff
This thread is not about me, it is about a disgusting government agency that forces people to show ID without experiencing undue harassment. Let us stick to the topic at hand, yes?
Inconvienient; maybe. Harassment; not even close! Same for the screening. I agree it is a pain in the butt to pull out my laptop, my liquids and to throw away my applesauce and unopened water. I do it though because it is the trade off I make to get on a plane.
Should we question authority? Of course. It keeps the evil from getting too much power, but you my friend are crossing the line.
Quote:
The right to travel is guaranteed pursuant to the Constitution
I would love to see where that is.The right to travel is guaranteed pursuant to the Constitution
Quote:
The volume of your typing indicates you're anything but.Originally Posted by United737522
It blows my mind that you can construe something as simple as showing an ID as harassment. Honestly, I am speechless.
Quote:
Well, if you're they type of person who says "how high?" on the way up when someone in au-tho-ri-tah says jump, then good for you. It seems many others are unwilling to submit to what we consider disgusting harassment by people who should have no say in the matter. Originally Posted by United737522
Inconvienient; maybe. Harassment; not even close! Same for the screening. I agree it is a pain in the butt to pull out my laptop, my liquids and to throw away my applesauce and unopened water. I do it though because it is the trade off I make to get on a plane.
Quote:
I beg to differ. And what should be my punishment for this "infraction"? Shoot me? Put me on a list? Jail me? Tell me what Comrade TSA should do to me for crossing this 'line' of yours, please! Originally Posted by United737522
Should we question authority? Of course. It keeps the evil from getting too much power, but you my friend are crossing the line.
Quote:
No one is stopping you from taking a boat or using your own 2 feet.Originally Posted by ND Sol
IDs are not required for domestic travel. The Government has said so in court. "Do You Want to Fly Today" - this is becoming a trite expression. Let me know when the bridge opens to Hawaii or the road to Juneau. Driving is not always a reasonable alternative. And if one does not have a license for the privilege of driving, then it may not be an alternative at all.
Ok, so no ID checks. Mr. Psycho buys a ticket, has no weapons, boards a plane. Mr. Psycho just broke out of the mental hospital and no one knows who he is. At 35,000 feet, he goes on a rampage and hurts people. He was on the no-fly list due to his status, but no IDs mean anyone can get on. Hmmm... that is real comforting.
With your theory all OLCI pax who normally have the convienience of not interacting with airline employees and going to the gate now have to show an ID to agent. All this when it could be checked when he is going through security anyway. It would be so much more inconvienient.
Quote:
Inconvienient; maybe. Harassment; not even close!
The Supreme Court thought that showing ID was important enough to decide a case concerning it.Originally Posted by United737522
It blows my mind that you can construe something as simple as showing an ID as harassment. Honestly, I am speechless.Inconvienient; maybe. Harassment; not even close!
Quote:
Here are some examples that a search could have found for you:Originally Posted by United737522
I would love to see where that is.
Quote:
A citizen's right to interstate travel has long been recognized as a fundamental right, grounded upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, of the United States Constitution. Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160, 173, 62 S.Ct. 164 (1941).
In the U.S., the right to travel is derived from the synthesis of several rights. This was quite well laid out in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) at 125-126.
"The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."
A citizen's right to interstate travel has long been recognized as a fundamental right, grounded upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, of the United States Constitution. Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160, 173, 62 S.Ct. 164 (1941).
In the U.S., the right to travel is derived from the synthesis of several rights. This was quite well laid out in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) at 125-126.
"The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."
Quote:
I beg to differ. And what should be my punishment for this "infraction"? Shoot me? Put me on a list? Jail me? Tell me what Comrade TSA should do to me for crossing this 'line' of yours, please!
I am not saying you don't have a right to complain and moan and question and so on. What is great about living here is you can do that. The line I am talking about is the one where you appear to become a whiner who whines for the sake of it. You are whining because you can. Just like people who file frivilous lawsuits. They cross the line, and they do it because they can.Originally Posted by Spiff
I beg to differ. And what should be my punishment for this "infraction"? Shoot me? Put me on a list? Jail me? Tell me what Comrade TSA should do to me for crossing this 'line' of yours, please!
Quote:
No disgusting government agency should ever be able to dictate the means by which people travel freely.Originally Posted by United737522
No one is stopping you from taking a boat or using your own 2 feet.
Quote:
With your theory all OLCI pax who normally have the convienience of not interacting with airline employees and going to the gate now have to show an ID to agent. All this when it could be checked when he is going through security anyway. It would be so much more inconvienient.
The so-called no-fly list is so inaccurate that there are children and dead people on it. Mr psycho can get someone else's ID and still go bezerko on a flight. Furthermore, not even a small fraction of Mr/Ms Psychos are even on this sick, disgusting, un-American 'list'. Is a list so full of false positives even remotely effective? Hell no. Furthermore, there's no recourse for those falsely accused and put on this list. Originally Posted by United737522
Ok, so no ID checks. Mr. Psycho buys a ticket, has no weapons, boards a plane. Mr. Psycho just broke out of the mental hospital and no one knows who he is. At 35,000 feet, he goes on a rampage and hurts people. He was on the no-fly list due to his status, but no IDs mean anyone can get on. Hmmm... that is real comforting. With your theory all OLCI pax who normally have the convienience of not interacting with airline employees and going to the gate now have to show an ID to agent. All this when it could be checked when he is going through security anyway. It would be so much more inconvienient.
Those responsible for the no-fly list should be caned and the list and their careers permanently destroyed.
Quote:
As far as complaining, I'd be happy if I didn't have to deal with a TSA staffer, who's probably on parole, grabbing my nuts as part of a secondary screening. If they at least gave that job to some decent looking woman, they could SSSS me all they wanted.Originally Posted by United737522
Ok, so lets put it in that perspective then. If there were no TSA, you and I both know everyone would complain that there is nothing in place to protect them. The TSA exists solely to shut these people up. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Quote:
Obviously my 'whining' must be a great inconvenience to someone if you're comparing complaints with frivilous lawsuits...Originally Posted by United737522
I am not saying you don't have a right to complain and moan and question and so on. What is great about living here is you can do that. The line I am talking about is the one where you appear to become a whiner who whines for the sake of it. You are whining because you can. Just like people who file frivilous lawsuits. They cross the line, and they do it because they can.
Quote:
Edwards vs. the State of CA is not at all related to this. It simply states that no matter the person, he cannot be denied entry into another state. It makes no mention of means of travel. Edwards was prosecuted on the basis that his brother was an indigent in TX who he brought to CA. It was ruled that people cannot be denied entry into other states.
In the U.S., the right to travel is derived from the synthesis of several rights. This was quite well laid out in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) at 125-126.
From that case: Although the Executive may regulate the travel practices of citizens, by requiring them to obtain valid passports, it may not condition the fulfillment of such requirements with the imposition of rules that abridge basic constitutional notions of liberty, assembly, association, and personal autonomy. Basically the last part meaning that it cannot make the requirements to get a passport too much that no one can get one.
"The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."
Well, that is great, but it makes no mention of the means used to travel. Using this theory of yours, anyone should be able to fly their own airplane, rocketship, or whatever.
Originally Posted by ND Sol
A citizen's right to interstate travel has long been recognized as a fundamental right, grounded upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, of the United States Constitution. Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160, 173, 62 S.Ct. 164 (1941). Edwards vs. the State of CA is not at all related to this. It simply states that no matter the person, he cannot be denied entry into another state. It makes no mention of means of travel. Edwards was prosecuted on the basis that his brother was an indigent in TX who he brought to CA. It was ruled that people cannot be denied entry into other states.
In the U.S., the right to travel is derived from the synthesis of several rights. This was quite well laid out in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) at 125-126.
From that case: Although the Executive may regulate the travel practices of citizens, by requiring them to obtain valid passports, it may not condition the fulfillment of such requirements with the imposition of rules that abridge basic constitutional notions of liberty, assembly, association, and personal autonomy. Basically the last part meaning that it cannot make the requirements to get a passport too much that no one can get one.
"The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."
Well, that is great, but it makes no mention of the means used to travel. Using this theory of yours, anyone should be able to fly their own airplane, rocketship, or whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 707Flyer
As far as complaining, I'd be happy if I didn't have to deal with a TSA staffer, who's probably on parole, grabbing my nuts as part of a secondary screening. If they at least gave that job to some decent looking woman, they could SSSS me all they wanted.
Last I checked, to work for a gov't agency or most any company ESPESCIALLY at the airport, you couldn't be on parole. I've had secondary screening and no one has even come close to touching me. If they have with you, you should have made a complaint on the spot.
Quote:
As if those were reasonable alternatives.Originally Posted by United737522
No one is stopping you from taking a boat or using your own 2 feet.
Quote:
The purpose of security is to protect the plane from being taken over or being downed; it is not your scenario. It is too easy to avoid the ID check; it is not a true security check. If you really are that concerned about that remote possibility, shouldn't you also be concerned about every person that enters a movie theater?Originally Posted by United737522
Ok, so no ID checks. Mr. Psycho buys a ticket, has no weapons, boards a plane. Mr. Psycho just broke out of the mental hospital and no one knows who he is. At 35,000 feet, he goes on a rampage and hurts people. He was on the no-fly list due to his status, but no IDs mean anyone can get on. Hmmm... that is real comforting.
Quote:
The ID checkers do not review the no-fly list and, as previously stated, you do not need an ID to fly domestically.Originally Posted by United737522
With your theory all OLCI pax who normally have the convienience of not interacting with airline employees and going to the gate now have to show an ID to agent. All this when it could be checked when he is going through security anyway. It would be so much more inconvienient.
Quote:
The so-called no-fly list is so inaccurate that there are children and dead people on it. Mr psycho can get someone else's ID and still go bezerko on a flight. Furthermore, not even a small fraction of Mr/Ms Psychos are even on this sick, disgusting, un-American 'list'. Is a list so full of false positives even remotely effective? Hell no. Furthermore, there's no recourse for those falsely accused and put on this list.
Those responsible for the no-fly list should be caned and the list and their careers permanently destroyed.
Actually, you CAN redress and get yourself off the no-fly list:Originally Posted by Spiff
No disgusting government agency should ever be able to dictate the means by which people travel freely.The so-called no-fly list is so inaccurate that there are children and dead people on it. Mr psycho can get someone else's ID and still go bezerko on a flight. Furthermore, not even a small fraction of Mr/Ms Psychos are even on this sick, disgusting, un-American 'list'. Is a list so full of false positives even remotely effective? Hell no. Furthermore, there's no recourse for those falsely accused and put on this list.
Those responsible for the no-fly list should be caned and the list and their careers permanently destroyed.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/custome...ess/index.shtm