|
Originally Posted by bdschobel
You can always call the local public defender's office. Every county has one. They'll speak with the police over the phone and totally stop ANY questioning.
Bruce |
Originally Posted by Japhydog
The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution to include the right of interstate travel.
This is the legal basis for the TSA. |
Originally Posted by Dovster
The Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not grant any rights to individuals. On the contrary, it specifically gives Congress the right to "regulate" interstate commerce.
This is the legal basis for the TSA. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. My understanding of the US Constitution is that it recognizes the gov't as a function of the "people", which hold general freedom and liberty in all things. The real question is about what constitutes security of the person and unreasonable search. If the gov't mandates regulations requiring searches, then it is the gov't (TSA) that is potentially infringing upon Amendment IV. Freedom of movement has been recognized as a fundamental democratic principle at many levels, including political and legal. If the gov't constrains this "unreasonably" by regulation, then a case can be made for constitutional violation. The issue is for someone to take it al the way to the Supreme Court and set a precedent of one sort or another. The fact that it is a commercial transaction, or happens on federal property, etc, etc, are weak arguments due to the effective practical control of access to viable transportation by the gov't. Therefore it is about individual, public freedom of movement. |
Originally Posted by robsawatsky
If the gov't constrains this "unreasonably" by regulation, then a case can be made for constitutional violation. The issue is for someone to take it al the way to the Supreme Court and set a precedent of one sort or another.
Originally Posted by U.S. v. Moreno, 475 F.2d 44, 51 (5th Cir. 1973)
Due to the gravity of the air piracy problem, we think that the airport, like the border crossing, is a critical zone in which special fourth amendment considerations apply. It is the one channel through which all hijackers must pass before being in a position to commit their crime. It is also the one point where airport security officials can marshal their resources to thwart such acts before the lives of an airplane's passengers and crew are endangered. In applying Terry were we to hold that airport security officials must always confine themselves to a 'pat down' search where there is a proper basis for an air piracy investigation, we think that such a per se restriction in the final analysis would be self-defeating. We have already pointed out that the hijacker can conceal explosives or weapons in places which might be overlooked in the course of a cursory pat down. It should be emphasized that such a search is not primarily for the investigating officer's protection, but rather for the protection of a distinct and uniquely threatened class -- this nation's air carriers, their crews and passengers."
|
Originally Posted by Japhydog
The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution to include the right of interstate travel.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:52 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.