I'm definitely getting a kick out of this discussion re: the inalienable right to bear liquid. Sitting in the UK at the moment and contemplating with dread an 11 hour flight home on the 16th, the TSA's restrictions look positively warm and inviting to me. How nice it would be not to have to pack my laptop in checked luggage. Or my child's iPod and Nintendo DS. Or all of our books. At the moment, we're not even allowed to carry on newspapers purchased AFTER clearing security. It looks likely to be the longest 11 hours of my life (especially given the limited entertainment options on United's 747s).

While I'm not the most frequent of travelers (around 35-40k each year, mostly for work), I'm not too concerned about the liquid ban. It's hard for me to get worked up about the right to bear Red Bull and Right Guard. Making one sit for 11 hours on a plane filled with bored children (including my own) without toys or books would violate the 8th Amendment if we were convicts, rather than paying customers.

Very astute. Congratulations for catching on. ;)

I think that someone needs a lesson in the Constitution. :rolleyes:

Flying is not a right. Airlines are a public accommodation and must, therefore, offer equal access, but that's about as close as the Constitution comes to touching on the right to fly. Similarly, a restaurant that requires my husband to wear a jacket in order to dine is not violating his right to dine. If he doesn't like the policy, he can choose not to dine out.

Amen to that. I live one state north of you and it is the same here.

You may want to try the search function and see the case law on this.

Actually, airlines are common carriers and are held to a higher standard than a restaurant, but then again that doesn't have anything to do with constitutional rights.

But all of this regards having an EQUAL right to fly, which is quite different from a right to fly. Airlines cannot discriminate. This has nothing to do with the airlines' or the government's ability to place conditions on travel that do not single out any suspect class.

I'm with lexdevil on this one. You might want to watch it with the eye rolling. The someone who needs a lesson is you. There is a legal definition of the word "right," and a difference between "right" and "privilege." You may possibly have the 'right' to fly through the air by flapping your arms, but you don't have any right to force anyone to let you on an airplane, unless they are keeping you off of it by discriminating on the basis of race, sex, etc.

It should be the airlines call, not the government's. The only function the government should have is to make sure that the airlines do not discriminate. After that, the government should have almost no involvement.

We are talking about two different aspects. Common carriers, such as commercial airlines, are subject to certain rules and they can make certain rules for flying on their planes subject to a higher scrutiny in their rules than restaurants for example. OTOH, we have a right to fly, which means that the government (through which all these rules are promulgated) make make certain rules concerning our rights, but they are subject to a higher level of scrutiny since it is an infringement on our rights.

Just a little off topic question...

But do you also think that it should be left to auto manufacturers to make decisions regarding the safety of their products, and let the market make most decisions? I know I'm just s**t disturbing...but even though I'm more than annoyed by many TSA policies, I would not deny that the government has a legitimate role in protecting the people. And I'm entirely aware that giving any government enough power to effectively do good entails giving it enough power to abuse people as well.

And though I have a right to freedom of speech, I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. And once again, there is a difference between an airline instituting rules (for which they have more latitude) and the government promulgating rules related to a right. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D

Thanks for the spirited discussion all; I expected nothing less in a TS/S thread!

.....

I want to clear up one misunderstanding that is bothering me: I don't represent anyone here who doesn't want to be represented. Participation in this thread is voluntary, as with every other thread on FT; participation in my bid is voluntary, as with every other endevour on FT. I don't know how much more uneqivocal I can be.

And yes, being a moderator of this forum whose currently on sabbatical, I happen to know full well the scope of my participation here.

.....

Now, Ambassadors of Freedom ...carry on! ... *g*

You definitely represent me and thank you!

Please proceed, madam! ^

So if you truly believe that then you would consent to a full body cavity search before you go in to McDonalds? Please.

My right to protect myself then includes the right to all of your personal information? Great. Please post your full name, address, date of birth, SSN, and all credit information so that we can conduct a background check to insure you're not using the Internet to endanger our safety. I assure you the information will not be misused.