I agree with you, and would add that in practice (with a flight's departure time approaching) TSA does have the "power" to delay a traveler long enough to miss a booked flight. They may not be able to deny you entry into the secure area indefinitely, but they can cause some pain by using delay tactics.

Personally I'd choose to fight the good fight and miss my flight. What others choose is up to them.

I wouldn't be so sure about this. The name game is relatively new, and AFAIK no court has actually held a trial on whether it is constitutional or not. Until then, all we can do is speculate.

The role of air travel is also rapidly changing. When courts first recognized the right to travel, air travel was insignificant. It now constitutes a significant portion of interstate travel, and is the only feasible way of traveling to at least one state. Courts may revise their opinions based on this new reality.

And even if the name game doesn't violate the constitution, it could still violate federal law. The TSA is not allowed to do anything unless it is authorized by its enabling legislation. This legislation (the Transportation Security Act or whatever it may be called) may be rather broad, but it still has limits that courts can enforce. Furthermore, the TSA needs to make regulations to implement the act, which are subject to administrative procedure requirements, public comment and so on.

Various people over the last few months have quoted several Acts that state people have a right to air travel. Now, a couple of acts and administrative actions since then have restricted that right (no fly lists, for one) somewhat but it is still a statutory right otherwise. The question for some posters on the thread, however, seems to be that if it isn't enumerated in the constitution or if you're not a US citizen then it doesn't count. Which, personally, I find a peculiar argument.


Moreover, properly promulgated regulation can be challenged in court more easily than law itself. It still requires a court to declare it null, but it's a lower threshold for doing so. As you & I have been saying, TSA doesn't get a blank check and the courts forcing TSA to go through the motions on NoS use & systems of use demonstrates that.

I can't find any such acts specifically for air travel. Can you point them out for me?

What enumerated power grants Congress the power to create a regulatory agency that can deny the right of citizens to travel domestically by whatever mode of common carrier with which they wish to contract that service?

That's not what I asked. SeriouslyLost said that there are Acts passed by Congress that protect the right to air travel, so I was asking which ones.

You might be a "strict constructionist" who thinks that congress can't do anything besides a list of 10 or 12 things stated in the constitution, but the courts have consistently disagreed with you for the last century or so.

It's 18.

Go back to school.

No Acts, plenty of rulings and opinions though.

Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 US (1941)
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.

Kent v. Dulles 357 US (1958)
The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.

Aphtheker v. Sec. Of State 378 US (1964)
Freedom of travel is a constitutional liberty closely related to the rights of free speech and association The constitutional right to travel has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized. Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the constitution.

US v. Guest 383 US (1966)
The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily use the highways or other instruments of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized. Freedom to travel throughout
the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.

Shapiro v. Thompson 394 US (1969)
This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulations which unreasonably burden or retrict this movement. It is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. It is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.

Griffin v. Breckenridge 403 US (1971)
Our cases have firmly established that the right of interstate travel is
constitutionally protected, does not necessarily rest on the Fourteenth
Amendment, and is assertable against private as well as governmental
interference.

Dunn v. Blumstein 405 US (1972)
Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution. (Affirming Guest, above)

US v. Davis 482 F.2D (1973)
It is firmly established that freedom to travel at home and abroad without unreasonable governmental restriction is a fundamental constitutional right of every citizen.

Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County 415 US (1974)
The right of interstate travel has repeatedly been recognized as a basic constitutional freedom.

Califano v. Torres 435 US (1978)
The constitutional right of interstate travel is virtually unqualified.

Would this do to start with, quoting this? :)

To Wally Bird and SeriouslyLost
 

Thanks!

I have completed my "learn something everyday" task for today thanks to you.

Wally Bird, the cases you cite are for travel in general, not specifically for air travel.

SeriouslyLost, 49 U.S.C. § 40103 seems to say that there is a right to air travel, but as discussed in the thread you linked to, it may be intended to protect the right to fly your own plane through the navigable airspace rather than the right to board a common carrier. But thanks for posting that, I will see if I can find any case law providing interpretation.

And not specifically for any other mode either. Why do you think air travel is any different? (Did you miss the part I bolded?)

So now your challenge is to show me any law or case which specifically states that there is no right to travel by air.
From the Supreme Court would be preferable.

While the discussion of law has been interesting, I'm not sure it's entirely helpful to KLRalph.

He has said that he intends to cooperate fully with the CBP to ensure his entry into the country. Questions remain as to what level he intends to comply with instructions from the TSA - and this could be problematic for a minor.

If he does not comply with requests from the TSA (name game, NoS, patdown, etc), the TSA can delay him long enough for him to miss his plane or he may have to leave the screening area to try again another time. Both of these can have expensive consequences. If you miss your flight, the airline may or may not rebook you for no charge. If they choose not to, you will need to buy a very expensive ticket to get where you are going. If you have to stay overnight, you may not be allowed to rent a hotel room since people under 18 are typically not allowed by the hotel chains.

So, while I respect your decisions to stand up for your convictions, be sure you fully understand all the ramifications of your decisions and be prepared with contingency plans as previously recommended.

CBP/TSA Power
 

Well I will make sure it will not get to that point. I was more curious about the theoritical legal aspect.
Apparantely there is no clear consensus (law) for the name game and such. And the fact that TSA can pester pax by stalling them without good grounds I find horrible. Reading the 'next big catch' thread makes me wonder how these powertripping idiots can be in business.

[Bold mine.]

They are not a business. If they were they wouldn't be. They are officious martinets, generally speaking.