mapsgl

This thread has gone in some interesting directions since I (The OP) shared my situation looking for guidance and information.

Here's some follow up FWIW.

My guess was that the trigger on my carry on was a special lotion I use for my face which contains glycerin.

I braced myself for trouble at screen because I purchased two additional bottles of this lotion while in LA.(Am I asking for trouble????)

Except for being asked to remove my "slipper shoes" I get through screening at LAX with no problem or issue.

So who knows what caused my initial problem at JFK??? I think I can eliminated the lotion -- I've never had a problem at JFK or any other airprt before when I travel with it. -- unless their is now "better" equipment at JFK that is the difference.

Anyway, I'm still unable to ascertain what my personal information was/is needed for, where it is/was being housed , how long, and how it will be disposed...

mapsgl

Bruce on the Loose

Is this the U.S. Constitution you're referring to, or some other personal document that only you have access to? I've read, reviewed, googled and parsed the U.S. Constitution and have yet to identify where, in said document, air travel is a "right" of a U.S. citizen.

In my reading of Bart's original post on this thread, it seems pretty clear that the passenger can choose to not divulge their personal information. At which point, the TSA will choose to not permit the passenger to clear the checkpoint.

Unless the entire process of screening passengers to begin with violates your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, your argument on this matter just doesn't hold water. Are you required to be subjected to a search of your person and bags by the U.S. government? No! But you volunteer for such a search if you choose to fly. Are you required to provide your personal information to the U.S. government? No! But if you test positive for explosives then you'll need to volunteer this information if you still choose to fly.

It's very simply PTravel; you're welcome to walk away at any time and keep whatever information you want confidential.

Bruce on the Loose

Oops, guess my previous question has been answered. Please disregard my previous post.

Bruce on the Loose

So your rates would be the same without that pro bono work? Face it, your paying clients simply subsidize your fees for those clients that can't afford it. You like the arrangement because then you can make yourself feel better by announcing all of these awards you win.

Bruce on the Loose

it could be done pro bono... then it doesn't cost anything! And an award could be won!

daw617

I've heard three claims here about the TSA's practice/policy of requiring names of explosive screened passengers: (1) that this policy ill-considered, unnecessarily injurious to passenger privacy, and generally a bad idea; (2) that this policy is in violation of the Privacy Act; (3) that this policy violates the US Constitution.

I consider claim (1) to be the most serious allegation.

I agree with you that claim (3) sounds like the weakest one. Regardless of what I think the Constitution says, there is no clear precedent finding a right to air travel in the Constitution. There is a case currently making its way through the courts -- see http://www.freetotravel.org/ -- but I'm very afraid we'll get a bad precedent from that case.

But even if claim (3) is groundless, claims (1) and (2) are still serious.

FliesWay2Much

Right -- and this is exactly one of the disclosures (potential impacts from not disclosing the personal information a government agency asks for) that the TSA is required to make in writing in order to comply with the Privacy Act.

Vulcan

I have not read all 5 pages, but the title seems very much like what happened to a FT friend of mine.
He was flying out of JFK and had his carry on test positive 3 times. After that they told him to have a seat while they call for the expert.

15 minutes later, the expert comes, walks around the bag 3 times, sniffs, and raises his tail, before the dog turns away. MY friend was then told he was cleared and could proceed.

True story.

24th ID

Thats because it's not a RIGHT, It's a privledge. I bacame engaged in a rather heated debate about this issue many months ago.........

FWAAA

You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

It must suck to be wrong.

Have a great Day ALL!!!!! Hooah!

bnarayan1511

Considering that air travel was not even a twinkle in someone's eye when the Consitution was first drafted, it would be surprising to find the right to air travel in there. As to why there is no Amendment that specifies this as a right, here is a theory (Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel)

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel. The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thomson, Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."

It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

You're absolutely right in that you don't have an explicitly stated constitutional right to travel within the country, but since you are not restricted from interstate travel, the 10th amendment says you have the right anyway.

It could be reasonably argued that Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1, presumes the right to travel between states when it says that a citizen of one state shall have all the rights of a citizen of another state.

For the truly bored (oops, I mean, interested ) read this:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment14/33.html

I am not advocating a position on this issue under discussion, merely sharing what might be pertinent information.

FWAAA

The US Constitution doesn't mention the right to walk down the sidewalk, either.

Anyone want to argue that's a privilege?

bnarayan1511

LOL. Or a right to grill hamburgers on July 4th. Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, burger!!!

Here are some things (not as trivial as my example) of things that are NOT in the US Constitution. Some are pretty surprising.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

FWAAA

^ ^

Come to think of it, no mention of baseball, hot dogs, apple pie or Chevrolet in the US Constitution, either. But woe to any government official who tries to tell us they are not rights but are merely privileges.

Bruce on the Loose

^ ^ ^