|
Originally Posted by mikeef
(Post 9545296)
Saw your comments in there (unless there is another Wandering Aramean). Good points.
Mike Certainly the bulk of my comments were cribbed from here, but any forum I can use to share the knowledge and wake people up from the preposterous slumber that they've fallen in to is one I will exploit. |
I found some interesting bits in the Gilmore decision at the link from the original post.
Page 18: We reject Gilmore’s right to travel argument because the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation. This would seem to contravert the prevailing opinion of some people here that right to travel is a fundamental constitutionally protected right. Although that particular statement was in conjunction with the explanation that other forms of travel were available to Gilmore. |
Originally Posted by Lurker1999
(Post 9546377)
I found some interesting bits in the Gilmore decision at the link from the original post.
Page 18: We reject Gilmore’s right to travel argument because the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation. This would seem to contravert the prevailing opinion of some people here that right to travel is a fundamental constitutionally protected right. Although that particular statement was in conjunction with the explanation that other forms of travel were available to Gilmore. |
Originally Posted by Lurker1999
(Post 9546377)
I found some interesting bits in the Gilmore decision at the link from the original post.
Page 18: We reject Gilmore’s right to travel argument because the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation. This would seem to contravert the prevailing opinion of some people here that right to travel is a fundamental constitutionally protected right. Although that particular statement was in conjunction with the explanation that other forms of travel were available to Gilmore.
Originally Posted by SCOTUS 394 US 618
This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.
Originally Posted by SCOTUS 394 US 618
"For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States."
We have no occasion to ascribe the source of this right to travel interstate to a particular constitutional provision. [Footnote 8] It suffices that, as MR. JUSTICE STEWART said for the Court in United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 757-758 (166): "The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." ". . . [T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution." Thus, the purpose of deterring the in-migration of indigents cannot serve as justification for the classification created by the one-year waiting period, since that purpose is constitutionally impermissible. If a law has "no other purpose . . . than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional." |
Let us drop this "no child left behind" nonsense, and double, no, triple-up on the civics classes.
|
Originally Posted by KleineFrau
(Post 9549621)
Let us drop this "no child left behind" nonsense, and double, no, triple-up on the civics classes.
Mike |
Originally Posted by mikeef
(Post 9549632)
But, but, but, don't you care about the children? Why do you hate America? Whyyyyyyyyyyy???????
Mike But for the official record, I care enough about my own future children to send them to school in other, more civilized nations. :) Also to have no television in the accessible part of the house, to teach the boys to be gentlemen and the girls to be ladies, and to have them understand why mommy and daddy left this country that advertises itself as so great. |
Originally Posted by Lurker1999
(Post 9546377)
I found some interesting bits in the Gilmore decision at the link from the original post.
Page 18: We reject Gilmore’s right to travel argument because the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation. This would seem to contravert the prevailing opinion of some people here that right to travel is a fundamental constitutionally protected right. Although that particular statement was in conjunction with the explanation that other forms of travel were available to Gilmore. If you don't like having to show ID to travel by plane, then go Greyhound or Amtrak. Oops, Greyhound and Amtrak both require ID to travel - if you don't like it, drive. Oops, you need to prove your identity for no other reason than you are riding in a car. If you don't like it, walk. Oops, now you need to have identification on you at all times. You constitutional right to move freely about your country has therefore been negated. Slippery slope - it needs to STOP at the airport before it goes any further. |
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 9549687)
You constitutional right to move freely about your country has therefore been negated.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States |
The Seattle Times has picked up the story, helping to spread the word about ID harassment being voluntary, with haraSSSSment being the TSA's retaliation.
|
Isn't it the exact same article?
|
Originally Posted by Superguy
(Post 9570307)
Isn't it the exact same article?
But it's now achieving wider circulation. :) |
I would like to see a non-profit group dedicated to bringing knowledge of our rights to the masses via non-internet means, namely television commercials, especially on the major networks.
Commercials with information like "You have the right to fly without identification" and "If a law enforcement officer asks to search you, your car, or your property, they don't have reasonable suspicion and you can say NO. Saying NO is also not reasonable suspicion." Since the classes of the last 50 years have either failed or have been ignored, we need to reach the masses in a way meant to touch the widest audience. |
Originally Posted by KleineFrau
(Post 9570436)
I would like to see a non-profit group dedicated to bringing knowledge of our rights to the masses via non-internet means, namely television commercials, especially on the major networks.
Commercials with information like "You have the right to fly without identification" and "If a law enforcement officer asks to search you, your car, or your property, they don't have reasonable suspicion and you can say NO. Saying NO is also not reasonable suspicion." Since the classes of the last 50 years have either failed or have been ignored, we need to reach the masses in a way meant to touch the widest audience. |
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:47 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.