The government may have the power to do this, but whether it's a good idea or not is a separate question. I tend to be skeptical about its value.

Umm, in some places in Alaska, there's really no feasible way to travel interstate without an airplane.

Also, it's worth considering the end result of the kind of reasoning you gave. Do you contend that the US government has the right to put restrictions on interstate travel by car, bus, train, plane, and every method of travel other than walking, leaving walking the only legal method of interstate travel? That sounds like an absurd situation, but it is the logical end result of the reasoning you've given. Sadly, when the DOJ was asked a question along these lines in the Gilmore case, they took the position that Gilmore could hire a chaffeur or something to drive him interstate, therefore his right to interstate travel hadn't been infringed (if I recall correctly). I think that's wrong-headed.

Didn't B747-437B (Sean Mendis) get refused to fly with DL after he refused to answer the security buffoons questions?
CDG seems to be even worse than ZRH, AMS, LON etc., where there's a questioning; but no requirements of excessive documentation.

Please show me where, in the Constitution or by Supreme Court precedent, there is a constitutional "right" to airplane travel, interstate or instate.

You will search in vain. If such travel has not been declared a "right" under the constitution, it is a privilege and it may be regulated. You have NO RIGHT to insist that you be given access to an airplane, except under the contract you have with the airline, which is subject to the government's security regulations.

The Supreme Court long ago declared interstate travel a constitutional right, subject like all such rights to regulation. Free speech, for example, is subject to reasonable time place and manner restrictions. I don't know about the parade of horribles scenario you posit, but it is clearly constitutional for the government to ask a series of questions before letting someone on a plane.

You are correct that whether the government may do it and whether it's a good idea are two separate questions. I am not addressing the latter point. I don't care much what other people's opinions are on that point on an internet bulletin board, even one as good as this one. I DO care when people (not you) misrepresent the law and assert yet another "right" that doesn't exist.

Where in the Constitution does it say that an American has a right to sexual activity without having it filmed by the government and distributed on the internet regardless of their desires? According to the same rationale as laid out above, the government has a right to do that too. Pretty? Not. Or is your kind of rationale one that the newly appointed SC justices would go along with? ;) Would that make you happy? It wouldn't me; but then again, it's not I who presume the government has rights to all that is undeclared in the Constitution. ;)

I tend to think that those powers specifically assigned, in the Constitution, to the government -- and no more -- are within its sphere. And everything else is within the sphere of each and every individual American citizen.

I'm not going to be a subject. I'm a citizen. ;)

If someone else wants a police state -- and likes being a state subject -- North Korea will make them a good home. I hear they like interrogations ... including before and after travel. ;)

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.