I always love the line "show me where in the constitution that it's a right to travel by airplane." Duh, it's not going to be there. The airplane wouldn't even be invented for more than 100 years down the road. People didn't even think about the possibilities of cars, busses or trains down the road either.

Interesting that I'm free to travel on the latter 3 with very little or no harassment at all. Yet as soon as I have the audacity to step on a plane, that freedom from harassment vanishes.

And don't you forget it, Citizen. :D

There are many, many "rights" which are not mentioned in the Constitution. That's because that was (and is) not the purpose of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights (aka the Amendments) does name specific rights where it was felt that clarification was needed or specifically where there was a perceived danger that those rights might be abridged. To summarize: the main body of the Constitution does not enumerate, guarantee or proscribe any right or privilege; the Amendments address a specific subset of rights.

But to your question:(emphasis mine)

hth

So you have a right to get from A to B, but that doesn't mean that it HAS to be by air....it could be by donkey and cart (funny, in the US it sometimes seems like that anyway) ;)

If there is a right to get from A to B, the right to go by land, sea or air should not be infringed upon.

Are you saying that you saw a flying donkey & cart? A misidentified flying object perhaps, say a reindeer and a sleigh? "Ho ho ho!" :D

Or in the case of TSA, dog and pony. :D

What a bunch of breathless, overwrought nonsense. Posts such as the above and others that point out that airplanes were not invented when the constitution was written state the obvious and display ignorance of constitutional law. (Moreover, save the political demogoguery for OMNI, as my analysis is fundamental constitutional law and has nothing to do with political parties and their choices for the Supreme Court.)

First, the constitution is subject to amendment, so the fact that it was drafted over 200 years ago does not preclude the word airplane from appearing in it. My question -- which was in part tongue in cheek -- was intended to establish the point that it does not appear there, and is therefore not part of the written constitution.

Second, I also requested where in Supreme Court precedent such a right had been declared. There are many rights -- including those to sexual privacy the poster cited with righteous indignation -- that have been recognized by the Supreme Court. That's why I asked for a case cite, and I'm still waiting for one. Sorry -- if a right does not appear in the constitution either explicitly or because the Supreme Court has declared it, it is not a constutional "right." Those of you that have not studied law ought to have a bit more humility before spouting off, because some of these rantings are embarrassing.

As to the case that cites a "right to travel" posted in another post, I myself have stated that there is such a right, and that it was established by Supreme Court precedent. Thanks for a case that affirms that longstanding right. Now, please try to understand what this means.

The government may not pass a law that prevents me from travelling from MEM to ATL. That does not mean -- and many seem unable to grasp this particular point -- that I have a "right" to travel from MEM to ATL by airplane. If there were such a "right," people who were grounded on 9/11 without reaching their destinations would have a cause of action against the federal government for depriving them of their constitutional rights.

Moreover, even if there WERE a constitutional right to interstate AIRPLANE travel, that right would be no more immune to government regulation than free speech or other constitutional rights are. Though I have the right to free speech, I may not exercise that right whenever, wherever or however I like. Please try to understand this very basic and commonsense point!

Thus, for those who say that ten or twenty security questions before getting on an airplane, no matter how annoying, "ought" to be unconstitutional because somehow it abridges your right to travel, that argument will never, ever work no matter how hard you wish it would.

In short, I am making a very simple point, to-wit: Those that somehow see the leading edge of tyranny in such practices are misguided in my opinion, but if you really believe that, you should use the political process (including the amendment process) to change the rules, because there is zero chance you will prevail in court with a "rights" argument.

Now if there's anyone out there that actually practices constitutional law and wishes to correct me, I am more than willing to admit I'm wrong, but please provide precedent instead of invective.

:rolleyes: Anything but "breathless, overwrought nonsense". My post shows the absurdity in asserting the position of those who believe that the government retains rights over all that is not mentioned, nor covered, by explicit law (including the Constitution and decisions about matters therein and thereout).

Who here practices constitutional law? :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter much, because this is a government of the people, by the people, for the people ... and not one for the Leader or the Party or the Leader's/Party's lawyers/supporters who use false appeals to authority to try and shut down voices they don't like.

Forgive me for I have sinned: the government reserves all powers over all things unmentioned, unless excluded by law (including by the body Constitution and judicial decisions). :rolleyes:

"Carry on, citizen." ;)

Some believe that if the government says you can only travel about by crawling on your knees through the mud that's "right" too -- especially since there's not an explicit law that reserves the right of the people to live like human being with dignity and thus travel by any and all privately available means, including walking upright with shoes on.

.... with freedom-loving Supreme Court Justices and legislators, freedom of movement won't be further infringed upon. And as the Constitution is a living document those rights that freedom of movement-haters take away can be gotten back too (when/if taken).

Does ADP-CDG care about US constitutional law? probably not. Anyone know a French lawyer specializing in French constitutional law? :rolleyes:

Nice campaign speech, though a bit incoherent. Silly constitutional analysis.

Article I, section 8 of the constitution gives the federal government the explicit power to regulate interstate commerce. All airplane travel, including purely instate routes, fits the definition of interstate commerce under supreme court precedent. So, all of the ranting about the government depriving citizens of reserved rights ignores the fact that, from the beginning of the republic, the government has had the explicit, constitutional power to do what it is doing today when it requires ten or twenty security questions of travellers before entering an airplane.

It is clear you think this should be otherwise. Great, make it happen!!! Use politics or revolution or whatever the heck you are trying to argue for. Just quit pretending (and misleading others) that what you think the law SHOULD be is what the law IS. As far as my qualifications for commenting on the law, if you care to know mine, I'll be glad to PM them to you and we can compare, though I'm certain of the result.

I stick to my previous statement -- ridiculous, overwrought nonsense -- even when punctuated with rolling eyes and smiley faces -- is still just that.

:rolleyes:

By the way, intrastate travel and interstate travel are not the same thing; and the Constitution does not give Congress powers to regulate intrastate travel. Congress has, by the Constitution, the power to regulate interstate commerce -- not intrastate (or "instate") travel. Simple fact.

Does ADP-CDG care about US constitutional law? Probably not, at least not most all of the time. Anyone know a French lawyer specializing in French constitutional law? :rolleyes:

Also, there are rights that exist independent of those that the Leader, Party, Government wishes us to have/not have. Like it or not, freedom of movement -- including by private means available and affordable to a human being, such as by plane -- is a basic human right. And freedom of association -- including freedom to not associate (such as not talking to contractors at CDG) -- is a basic human right too.

Advocates of trampling upon basic human rights -- freedom of movement and association -- could find friends in authority in North Korea and Gitmo. I hear that freedom of movement and association does not exist there.

Also, closer to home, such advocates of trampling over basic human rights could "use politics or revolution or whatever the heck [they] are trying to argue for" to continue to step upon even basic human rights such as the freedom of association and movement.

It is clear what the above post and its predecessors are defending. I'm glad not to be on the insecurity side of the security fence, for there's smart security and then there's insecurity. This CDG questioning is a dog and pony show.

If you are expecting a SCOTUS precedent for the specific mode of travel (ie. by air), I believe you are correct that there isn't one simply because no challenge has been heard to date. In the Gilmore case the 9th did in fact opine that such a right does not exist; it remains to be seen whether that will be appealed and what the Supreme Court would decide. In the current climate, I personally would not be too optimistic should they even decide to hear the appeal.

It is however, an equally arguable view that a particular right which is not enumerated in the Constitution does in fact exist until the Court rules that it does not. There are many precedents, but again none dealing specifically with air travel.I think we can ignore those who are advocating an unencumbered right; this has been dismissed several times in the context of drivers licenses ; but the blanket statement that no right (of any kind) to travel by air exists is so far supported only by the Gilmore ruling.

The Ninth Amendment was added to the Constitution specifically because the framers were worried that people would assume that if a right wasn't enumerated then it did not exist.

Right, and free speech doesn't mean that you HAVE to be allowed to speak freely in public. It could mean that you can say whatever you want, so long as you're locked inside a soundproof room so that nobody can hear you. And the right of women to vote doesn't mean that they HAVE to be allowed to vote in governmental elections, maybe it just means that they must be allowed to vote for American Idol contestants.

Similarly, if a resident of Alaska wants to go to Washington to lobby his representatives, the right to travel means that he can be prohibited from taking a plane, train, bus, car or bike, but so long as he's allowed to walk or use a donkey, it's not an infringement upon his rights. Because it's completely reasonable to make that trek on donkey, thus his right to travel is not infringed upon. :rolleyes:

I don't find the "drivers license" "trump card" argument to be particularly persuasive, for two reasons.

First, one does need a license to actually drive a car, but one does not need a license to be a passenger. How does needing a license to operate a vehicle translate into riding on an airplane being a privilege? There's a serious problem with the logic behing that leap.

Second, a drivers license is simply a check on your ability to operate a vehicle safley, not authorization to travel to certain places or via certain routes. Controls on who is allowed to be an airplane passenger are more like the latter types of authorization, not the former.

I think you misinterpreted my intent. I mentioned the drivers license as an example where the Court has ruled that the right does exist, but is subject to certain conditions. An encumbered right.

There are some posters here who seem to advocate that the right to travel by air (which I agree does exist) should be free from any conditions. Not realistic and detracts from the main debate.

The "right" to drive is different than the right to move/travel, with the latter being a basic right that has existed since time immemorial. The reason why being a driver/pilot generally requires licensing but being a passenger does not has been discussed and enumerated before, here on FT and elsewhere. [Passengers don't need to direct the vehicle in a systemized manner to keep passageways safe; the operators do exactly that, with a license evidencing that they are capable of doing such. (In other words, same old story, same old discussions.)]

Material encumberances (i.e. placement of conditions) upon even basic rights can be found from place to place, from time to time; but that doesn't mean it is that way universally, should be that way anywhere, or will be that way always. Passenger licenses -- sort of domestic passports, Soviet-style :eek: -- are something I consider an unwanted condition for travel, an unnecessary encumberance upon a basic human right to movement and free association.

Government-sponsored, freedom-eroding* encumbrances upon basic human rights to mobility -- in the absence of due judicial process or (the proverbial) force majeure -- goes against the best of America. Or even Canada and France for that matter. :D There is no compelling state interest for the kind of questioning observed at CDG to be backed by the US (or French) government; nor is such questioning much of anything besides a diversionary waste of resources, a dog and pony show.

------
* Privacy is instrumental to freedom -- especially in systems where spun stories linking disjointed facts through imaginative conjecture are increasingly used for/toward governmental action, such as to prosecute persons for crimes not materially committed, for so-called pre-emptive strikes against "gathering threats" involving future criminal possibility (rare possibility or not) and the like. [And without the freedom of association -- or non-association -- every person of normal mental capability could be considered a criminal somewhere.]

Sigh. What a stupid argument. Because email wasn't invented before the Constitution was drafted, that means that the right to free speech somehow doesn't apply to email until a specific amendment is passed that states that oh, yes, The First Amendment applies to email too? What an absurd notion! We recognize that the constitution right to freedom of speech applies to all modes of communication, whether that mode was mentioned explicitly in the constitution or not.

The real question is whether there is a broad constitutional right to freedom of travel. If there is, then it seems likely that this would lead to some kind of right to travel by airplane.

It's not clear to me whether there is such a broad right to travel embedded in the Constitution, or whether the Constitution should be read to imply such a broad right. It's a matter of interpretation. I can see an argument both ways. For instance, some folks find at least some kind of limited right to travel implicit in the right to free association and the right to petition government officials. Others find that a stretch. Ultimately, all that matters (for the purposes of the law) is what the SCOTUS thinks.

Right now, I suspect the SCOTUS would not hand down a favorable decision, given current trends. My own guess is that the Supreme Court would rule against a broad right to freedom of travel. I think that's unfortunate. But note that the Constitution isn't the be-all and end-all of civil liberty.

Saying that any restriction of the right to freely travel is a violation of civil liberties is emphatically not the same as saying that it is a violation of the Constitution. It is perfectly possible to believe that the Constitution does not contain a right to free travel, but that it should, or that this right should be established and recognized by some other route (even if it is isn't found in the Constitution). The Constitution isn't the final word on justice, civil liberty, and what is good public policy.

Anyone who confuses what is legal with what is right and good is in for a world of confusion.

Indeed, I'm not aware of any clear SCOTUS ruling establishing a broad right to freedom of travel. I agree.

Actually, that doesn't follow. Legal scholars spend a great deal of time arguing over what the Constitution might or might not imply, and sometimes they come to the conclusion that the Constitution should be recognized to protect some right, even before the SCOTUS rules accordingly. Likewise, lower courts sometimes rule that the Constitution protects certain rights before the SCOTUS rules this way. Please recognize that the law is not quite so black-and-white as you seem to imply.

Sorry, this is far too simplistic. Constitutional rights are never inviolable. It's not that black-and-white. The question is whether the individual has any interest, and how strong that interest is, and what test is used to balance the individual's interest in being left alone vs the government's interest in regulation.

In the case of freedom of speech, the Court has established a test and level of review that generally puts its thumb on the scales in favor of the individual and requires a very high bar before government regulation is allowed. If you've studied the subject, I'm sure you're familiar with "strict scrutiny", which is the strictest level of review (it comes with the strongest presumption against regulation). Generally, to regulate speech, the burden is on the government to show a "compelling state interest", to show that the regulation is "narrowly tailored" to advancing this interest, and to show that the regulation is the "least restrictive means" for advancing this interest. This tends to mean that courts are extremely skeptical of regulations that restrict or regulate speech, except in certain narrowly prescribed ways.

There are other, less restrictive, levels of scrutiny. "Rational basis" is a very loose kind of scrutiny, where the courts give great deference to the government, and where the courts are very reluctant to overturn regulation (generally, it is overturned only if the regulation appears to be totally irrational -- there is no conceivable rational basis for the regulation). "Intermediate scrutiny" is an intermediate balancing test. I suspect you know all of this.

One of the questions here, if there is a right to freedom of travel, is what level of scrutiny is appropriate. Do restrictions on the freedom to travel deserve "strict scrutiny", "intermediate scrutiny", a "rational basis" test, or some other degree of judicial scrutiny? And, how broadly does the freedom to travel apply?

What I'm trying to say is that the answers here are not so clearcut. If I had to guess, I'd guess that the SCOTUS would not support the kind of broad right to freedom of travel (by any mode of transportion) that I'd like to see -- but, this is only a guess. There is room for legitimate debate about how the SCOTUS might rule, and how they ought to rule.

My thought is that freedom to travel is an "essential liberty". The Fifth Amendment states that depriving us of liberty requires due process of law. For example, a person on probation or parole is required to obtain permission before traveling out of State. However, this person is on probation or parole as a result of some due process.

I also think that there is a right to travel by airplane. I cannot see how a resident of Hawaii can travel to the US Mainland by any other practical means.

I hate these people asking us these security questions. Do they see us frequent flyers as terrorists? I like working on my quilts during long haul flights and I have had a pair of small sewing scissors confiscated at CDG before boarding a flight.

When you think that CDG airport has some 50 under the cover mosques which have been spotted in it... :mad: A book on the subject by politician Philippe de Villiers has made the news lately. ^

This investigation found out that many muslim fundamentalists were hired for baggage handling and other strategic services in the airport among other things. :td:

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/22042006/5/...roport-de.html

I don't care if they hire fundamentalist sikhs, fundamentalist muslims, fundamentalist jews, fundamentalist hindus, fundamentalist christians, fundamentalist buddhists or fundamentalist atheists. That someone is a religious fundamentalist does not mean they are a security risk, for a religious fundamentalist and violent extremist are not the same thing. Of course scapegoating ethnic and religious minorities as security risks is old game -- including in France -- where a handful of examples are used to smear the many that share a few common characteristic but have many other characteristics that are distinguishing. "J'accuse" -- I think we remember -- came as a result of a not too different context, as a reaction to the same old game.

I go through CDG a lot and I've never seen 50 "under the cover" mosques there. And even if CDG did, big whoppy-dee-do. They could have 100 "under the cover" mosques, 1000 "under the cover" churches or 200 "under the cover" temples and it wouldn't change a thing. Many US and international airports have an airport chapel -- not so under the cover -- and I don't see planes falling uncontrollably from the sky every day.

N.B. According to the linked article, there's talk about Roissy and then talk about CDG, which are not interchangeable -- although the author of the item commented about in the article loves to confuse matters to peddle xenophobia -- since the latter is the airport and the former is the Commune (basically administrative-type area) where c. 25% of CDG is located. (The other c. 75% of CDG is located in a different geographic zone than Roissy.)

I would like to come back to the drivers license argument and explore it a little further.

Yes, driving is privilege. However, there is a clearly stated set of rules covering granting and revoking this privilege. Specifically, you must show ability to drive to get your license. That is all. If you show this ability, you are issued your license. No security questions, no background investigations, nothing of a sort. Furthermore, you do not forfeit any of your constitutional rights by driving a car: Cops cannot stop, question and search you just because you are driving. Moreover, once issued, your license cannot be taken away without some measure of due process.

If we follow the logic of some people who compare the two, the cops should be allowed to stop and search any vehicle at will, without any level of suspicion, as well as to interrogate the driver and passengers. Not only that, the State should have the power to revoke your drivers license at any time, without any due process and even without telling you - this is what the no-fly list essentially does to your right to travel.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a part of our written Constitution, enshrines mobility rights in section 6; Canadian citizens have the right to travel to any other Canadian jurisdiction for the purpose of engaging in lawful employment. As the Charter used the Bill of Rights almost exclusively as a template, one could arge that this right also implicitly exists in the US Constitution. And it does, to a degree: the American Constitution enshines the principle of interjurisdictional reciprocity, which means that all states in principle have to recognize and give merit to other states' laws, and not punish citizens from other American states who move to yours. Unless, of course, you're talking about gay couples from Massachusetts.

Although not directly delineated in the US Constitution, American mobility rights are now generally recognized as an established right in US Constitutional law. This absolute right is, however, limited to private transportation; courts have generally upheld the right of state and federal governments to regulate and limit access to most forms of public transportation.

I think it should be pointed out that you can never forfeit your Constitutional rights. Any party that breaches your rights, which are enshrined in any Constitutional document, is required to justify that act. Courts do not require individuals to justify the decision to exercise their Constitutional rights. The creation of child pornography and "hate speech" (e.g. encouraging people to kill certain groups of people) are obvious exceptions to this general rule.

They actually can. In Alberta, cars can be stopped randomly to select drivers who may be impaired. This is a breach of citizens' Constitutional rights, but it's a justified breach, given the aim to reduce the prevalence of drinking and driving.

Most Drivers' Boards are Administrative Tribunals, which adhere to the principles of Natural Justice, and not what most people think of as "due process". Yes, you get a hearing, but decisions are often arbitrary and no reasons are articulated by the licensing board. Driver Licensing Boards are not courts.

As above; the real difference here is that the police are interfering with citizens' private property. Their respective authority to intervene/search/regulate is therefore greatly circumscribed by law. This is not, however, the case of public transport, in which pax travel as guests of a corporation. Because they do not actually own the jet/car/bus/train in which they're travelling, they subsequently enjoy few/no privacy rights and are deemed to have no expectation of having any.

If a court were to rule that residents of AK or HI had a right to travel by air because it was their only means to do so, would equal protection or some such similar doctrine mean that the rest of us have the same right? It seems illogical that the federal govt. could recognize a right for residents of only certain states.

Again, all Americans have the right to travel to another state, and you are not required to take public transportation to do so. It may be ridiculously expensive for residents of Alaska and Hawaii to travel by private vessel -- which would enable them to avoid most security regulations -- but increased cost is not a concern for the Courts.

They are allowed, in the US at least, to see if you're drunk. They're not allowed to search your vehicle (aside from what is in plain view) without your consent, a warrant or probable cause. A drunk driving checkpoint isn't an automatic excuse to make people pop open the trunk.

If you are a passenger in someone else's vehicle you lose your right? What is the argument to support that claim?

Ship???

Build a wooden raft from a palm tree or two? :D

Ships are not a good option, and if left as the only one it would disrupt many persons livelihood.

You want to get the conservationists involved in this "lively" debate too.... ???
:eek:

Nah.... they've got Easter Island. And all they need is 40k miles in coach roundtrip from JFK, MIA, LAX to there.

Sigh, what a stupid way to interpret what I said. I was taking the analysis step by step. What you called "stupid" is nevertheless true, and was not intended to prove any more or less that what it proves. There is no explicit right to airplane travel in the US Constitution even though it COULD be there if we really wanted to write it in. That's not too tough to understand, is it?


Thanks for the tutorial. You sound as if you've had a survey course on con. law as an undergrad, but not much more. IF you had, you would know that there IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AIRPLANE TRAVEL. If you are a lawyer, you need to dust off your Gunther on Const. Law. All your handwringing about what the "SCOTUS" would find embedded in the constitution is beside the point as no court has ever found such a right, and no court is remotely likely to do so. The latest court to unanimously dismiss such a silly idea out of hand is the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in the Gilmore v. Gonzales case. You might take a look at that case to further your knowledge on the difference between a constitutional right to interstate travel, which exisits, and a constitutional right to travel by airplane, which does not, and how the arguments of silly people who think such a right inheres in the constitution are treated by serious people called judges.

Your suggestion that constitutional rights arise when scholars recognize them is particularly foolish. Where could one have gotten that idea?

It would make an interesting law school hypothetical to ask what result if the US Congress abolished airline travel in the US as too risky? I'm not sure what the result would be, but it would almost definitely not be based on a constitutional right to airline travel.

Finally, what some posters, even ones with enough knowledge to make them embarrassingly dangerous, cannot seem to grasp is that, in the absence of the constitutional right to airplane travel, the federal government may regulate interstate commerce. The means chosen require only a "rational basis." Not a convincing basis, not something that most people would vote for, just some connection between the government power and what they're doing.

Let me think, what could the connection be between asking 20 questions at an airport and the government ability to regulate commerce? I know!! Airplanes moving through the skies have been used as weapons of mass murder and destruction!! Wow, it's a close call, but I would say that the means chosen by the government has a rational relationship to this government interest.

Now, there might be limits to what the government may do in airport/airline security. Those limits are not found in the "right to travel." It would be much better to spend one's time looking at fourth amendment cases (a bit less of a longshot, though a longshot nonetheless) than making up rights and misleading people about what the constitution says and means.

Or possibly the ninth:
the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.

This point has been brought up by a couple of folks and I've avoided addressing it because it will upset some folks to learn how this amendment is interpreted. In fact, I personally disagree with it, but the US Supreme Court largely refuses to use the Ninth Amendment as a rule of decision/source of constitutional rights.

In other words, despite it's wording and the common sense of it, it is NOT a viable legal argument to say that the Ninth Amendment reserves all nonenumerated rights to the people, and that something like a "right to airplane travel" is one of them, and thus the government may not infringe it. Indeed, when the SCt. recognized a general right to interstate travel many years ago, it did not employ the ninth amendment, but the privileges and immunity clause. The reluctance to use the ninth amendment substantively to protect rights is based on the fear that justices (who else would "interpret" what rights are reserved?) will simply invent rights out of thin air.

What this means is that you don't get to (successfully, at least) argue in court that the ninth amendment protects your right to "travel by airplane" and the government may not infringe it by asking questions. A case based solely on that argument would be laughed out of court. Indeed, the dedicated plaintiff that brought Gilmore v. Gonzales apparently didn't even try that one, and he seems to have tried everything else.

So, I understand why people make this argument, and it makes logical sense, but a ninth amendment claim won't fly, and it hasn't for many decades.

The Internet has also been used for that purpose. Would the government thus be reasonably allowed to engage in the 20 questions game before we're allowed to use it, or otherwise implement a Chinese-style monitoring and censorship system?

Driving and rental vehicles have also been used for interstate terrorism. Do you think the government would be justified in asking 20 questions before one is allowed to rent a vehicle? What about having questioning stations on the borders of each state?

The basic argument is the same in each one of these cases.

And does it make any difference whether there's actually and solid proof that the 20 questions can reasonably be expected to prevent terrorism? Doesn't something have to be effective in its stated goal in order to have a rational relationship to a government interest?

First, let me be clear -- it doesn't matter what I personally "think," I'm just telling you what the law IS.

The answer to all of your questions except the last one is Yes -- I believe the government could constitutionally do all of the things you mention. I.e., all of the things you list would be within the government's power to regulate interstate commerce. Perhaps there might be some type of free speech issue re: the internet, but please note that free speech is actually an enumerated, recognized constitutional right, unlike the "right to airplane travel." So, putting aside the possibility of a first amendment challenge, the government can do those things.

Would the government do them? Politically, each of the things you mention would be political poison, so they are not done. Make no mistake, however, they could be done.

Finally, as anyone who has attended law school could tell you, the answer to the last question is a resounding NO. The government, in meeting the "rational relationship" test in the exercise of its power to regulate interstate commerce need not present detailed studies "and solid proof that the 20 questions can reasonably be expected to prevent terrorism[.]" They simply must articulate a rational argument that the regulations may be connected with the regulation of interstate commerce. This represents great court deference to the decisions of the legislature (from which government administrative agencies obtain their authority). That normally is a good thing.

Now, that's the law, though a bit simplistically stated. Why are folks here so obsessed with establishing a "human right" or a "constitutional right" against these questions? The way our system is supposed to work is that you go out and petition the government, i.e., your legislators, for redress of grievances. All of this "rights talk" is a waste of energy and will not help meet your goals.

Not true. It's worked before. ;)

Of course, those who are believers in near-limitless government authority will continue to hope that "[a]ll of this 'rights talk' is a waste of energy and will not help meet [our] goals" of eliminating the security dog and pony show, including the wasteful "security" questioning at airports which they may defend.

Because if the right is protected it doesn't matter if you're in the minority. That's why racial and other minorities in the US have been so concerned about getting SCOTUS to chime in in support. According to opinion polls, interracial marriage wouldn't have been legalized until the late 1990s if it were a popularity contest. Instead, Loving was decided in 1965. (Probably it would have been later than the late '90s because Loving changed the facts on the ground, which helped sway public opinion, and those who were strongly opposed would probably be the most likely to vote in elections, just as we see in today's marriage debates.)

People who believe that the freedom to travel inside the country is a right are probably in the minority now. If there's another terrorist attack or if the brainwashing works well enough those who believe in that right will be in the extreme minority as any stupid plan to limit freedom simply for the sake of limiting freedom (under a phony argument of "security," of course) will breeze through Congress. Better to get the rights recognized now, than to have them trashed and subverted later.

Because those questions violate our right to privacy. The existence of this right has been clearly established by the Supreme Court.

In another thread I tried to explain that even a simple a question about the purpose of the trip can by itself be invasive, because the truthful answer may be: "It is personal and private. I do not feel like discussing it with a total stranger". The other possibility is that the trip may involve a business matter that employer specifically forbids discussing outside of the office with people who do not have the need to know. This actually happened to me a few years ago in AMS. The wicket gets even stickier if the business matter is classified.

If it is established that there is a right to air travel, then it follows that security questioning forces us to choose between two rights: Right to travel and right to privacy.

My personal view is: It does not make any sense to affirm that there is a right to travel and then state that there is no right to travel by any specific means. Following this logic, the Government could take away the right to travel by car, by trian, by bus, on horseback, or even on foot. Clearly, this is absurd.
Part of the problem is that questioning that gave rise to the thread took place in CDG. This may be a jurisdictional "no man's land".

If such questioning ever took place in the US, the proper venue to challenge that will be in Court.

I think this is a very fair point, and this is the reason that I always read and respect Doppy's posts though I often disagree. It is very fair to say that because the SCt. changes it's views over time, and will not infrequently "find" new rights in the constitution, that agitation along this front may not prove entirely futile as I have suggested before.

Thus, I think Doppy makes a very fair point above, though I think it's a bit unfair to suggest that the security questioning is a "stupid plan to limit freedom simply for the sake of limiting freedom. . . ," but it is not my mission to convert anybody, especially on an internet bulletin board, to my opinion on that.

One correction to the above -- it has been held for many decades that there IS a constitutional right to interstate travel, and I've said that a number of times in this thread.

I do not think that this issue rises to the Loving v. Virginia example, but that's also just my opinion. Nor do I think it would have been the late '90's before society changed in the absence of Loving. Also just my opinion.

Contrary to the fruitloop rantings of one or two posters on this issue, I think the idea of working through the political system and continuing legal pressure is not such a crazy idea. Here is not the place to debate whether this is a proper approach to constitutional law and whether rule by life-tenured judges is better than rule by the people, but that question is squarely raised by this issue.

This does not in any way change my points about what the law ACTUALLY IS NOW, and what it is likely to be in the near to mid term future.

Probably not. The courts have protected freedom of speach very strongly over the years. They haven't protected the right to travel to the same degree.

I hope you realize that what would be justified is a very different question from what would be allowed. I feel strongly that this would not be justified, but whether I have no clue it would be allowed.

Well, there are similarities. Personally, I feel that the restrictions on freedom of travel that have been allowed by the courts are not justified, and that those restrictions are bad policy and an inappropriate infringement of civil liberties. But what is legal is not always the same as what is right and just and good.

The Internet has been used to corrdinate and execute terrorists operations, and has been instrumental in attacks. The same justification of penalizing everyone seems like it would apply here.

I do realize that. Unfortunately, especially when people are operating on emotions, what's allowed often exceeds what's justifiable.

In chronological order:

"Working through the political system and continuing legal pressure is not such a crazy idea", it's the most effective idea. I'm glad to see the chronological evolution above.