TSA and the Constitution
May 18, 2009 | 4:38 pm
#91
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 29,078
Some special few take this oath:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
May 18, 2009 | 5:31 pm
#92
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Bull, right back at you. You believe that you have a right to life? What about those killed by lightning every year, or mud slides, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, car crashes, disease, falling space junk, the odd rogue cockroach in the ear, or an entire host of other things? Who deprived them of their right to life? Wrong Jim, you have the right to try. Shot in the chest is only one of many ways to get killed or be killed. And none of those killed has had their rights abrogated, dead people dont have rights. Complain to the bullet, the lightning bolt, the mud, the flood, the weather, the earth moving, the car company (all to often this is what happens), or whatever. You have the right to live your life, until it ends. Then you have no rights.
You have the right to own a gun, buy an alarm system, get a dog, hire a security guard, build a fence, live in the country, or a whole host of other options right along with none of the above. Did he take your rights? No, he took your TV. Show me in the constitution the passage that says you have a right to own a TV.
It does if you refuse to defend those rights. Refuse and you get exactly what you deserve.
You have the right to own a gun, buy an alarm system, get a dog, hire a security guard, build a fence, live in the country, or a whole host of other options right along with none of the above. Did he take your rights? No, he took your TV. Show me in the constitution the passage that says you have a right to own a TV.
It does if you refuse to defend those rights. Refuse and you get exactly what you deserve.
May 18, 2009 | 5:50 pm
#93
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
The only rights that exist are those that we human beings have decided upon. We agree (somewhat) on what those rights are and agree (mostly) to follow the rules (laws) we have created. And that's pretty much it.
In nature, you have no rights. Nature respects no right other than the strong survive. There is no concept of fairness, of "mine," of "right to," in nature. They are man-made constructs.
And, of course, what we say today is a right we can say tomorrow is not a right, and vice versa. These are not absolute concepts.
And now it's - "Hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to Omni we go....."
In nature, you have no rights. Nature respects no right other than the strong survive. There is no concept of fairness, of "mine," of "right to," in nature. They are man-made constructs.
And, of course, what we say today is a right we can say tomorrow is not a right, and vice versa. These are not absolute concepts.
And now it's - "Hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to Omni we go....."
May 18, 2009 | 6:43 pm
#94
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
May 18, 2009 | 7:24 pm
#95
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
And here is the crux of the problem as I see it with the general argument in this forum about rights. A failure to understand.
No one is going to actively defend your rights, they will do so only for their own rights and if you happen to have the same issue they may include you in their efforts. But they are not going to actively seek you out to find out if you think that your rights are being violated (unless they are going to get paid a great deal for it of course).
It is every individuals responsibility to advocate for their own rights, and in failing to do so get exactly what they deserve.
No one is going to actively defend your rights, they will do so only for their own rights and if you happen to have the same issue they may include you in their efforts. But they are not going to actively seek you out to find out if you think that your rights are being violated (unless they are going to get paid a great deal for it of course).
It is every individuals responsibility to advocate for their own rights, and in failing to do so get exactly what they deserve.
To those that are jumping TSORon, you are allowing your bias to color what he said into what you think he said.
There are very few noble people that defend another's right unless they are defending their own. Thankfully there are a lot of like minded people that think our Bill of Rights is a good thing.
We have to stand up for our rights individually and collectively. If we collectively fail to stand for our rights we get what we deserve for our laziness or fear.
p.s. TSORon, it is still nuts around here I will have a rebuttal to your post later (much later).
May 18, 2009 | 7:27 pm
#96
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
The only rights that exist are those that we human beings have decided upon. We agree (somewhat) on what those rights are and agree (mostly) to follow the rules (laws) we have created. And that's pretty much it.
In nature, you have no rights. Nature respects no right other than the strong survive. There is no concept of fairness, of "mine," of "right to," in nature. They are man-made constructs.
And, of course, what we say today is a right we can say tomorrow is not a right, and vice versa. These are not absolute concepts.
And now it's - "Hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to Omni we go....."
In nature, you have no rights. Nature respects no right other than the strong survive. There is no concept of fairness, of "mine," of "right to," in nature. They are man-made constructs.
And, of course, what we say today is a right we can say tomorrow is not a right, and vice versa. These are not absolute concepts.
And now it's - "Hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to Omni we go....."
Mods please keep this thread here.
May 18, 2009 | 9:16 pm
#97
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And so, back to the original point of this thread (what, an on-topic post? we can't have that ...). The Constitution doesn't explicitly guarantee me the right to unrestricted airline travel. But the Constitution doesn't explicitly deny me those rights, either. The Ninth Amendment says we have to look elsewhere to resolve the question.
May 18, 2009 | 9:25 pm
#99
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
May 18, 2009 | 9:37 pm
#100
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
First, even if we do collectively stand for our rights, we can still end up losing them. It's not like "standing for our rights" is sufficient in all cases.
Second, I'll buy that we may collectively get what we deserve, but not individually. I still don't think it's my fault when someone breaks into my house, and I've taken reasonable precautions to secure it. I didn't force someone else to commit B&E against me.
Third, there are other reasons someone might not "stand for their rights" besides laziness and fear. Sometimes there are pragmatics involved. (With respect, Trollkiller, you yourself said that you'd be willing to be a test case challenging the TSA, but only if someone else provided the money. Isn't defending your personal liberty worth going into bankruptcy? Or are you lazy or fearful?)
I'm trying not to get this too far off-topic (and, yes, failing miserably, thank you very much). But telling the geeky kid that it's his own fault that the playground bully took his lunch money is just plain wrong.
May 18, 2009 | 9:49 pm
#101
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
I'm sorry; I still don't buy this.
First, even if we do collectively stand for our rights, we can still end up losing them. It's not like "standing for our rights" is sufficient in all cases.
Second, I'll buy that we may collectively get what we deserve, but not individually. I still don't think it's my fault when someone breaks into my house, and I've taken reasonable precautions to secure it. I didn't force someone else to commit B&E against me.
Third, there are other reasons someone might not "stand for their rights" besides laziness and fear. Sometimes there are pragmatics involved. (With respect, Trollkiller, you yourself said that you'd be willing to be a test case challenging the TSA, but only if someone else provided the money. Isn't defending your personal liberty worth going into bankruptcy? Or are you lazy or fearful?)
I'm trying not to get this too far off-topic (and, yes, failing miserably, thank you very much). But telling the geeky kid that it's his own fault that the playground bully took his lunch money is just plain wrong.
First, even if we do collectively stand for our rights, we can still end up losing them. It's not like "standing for our rights" is sufficient in all cases.
Second, I'll buy that we may collectively get what we deserve, but not individually. I still don't think it's my fault when someone breaks into my house, and I've taken reasonable precautions to secure it. I didn't force someone else to commit B&E against me.
Third, there are other reasons someone might not "stand for their rights" besides laziness and fear. Sometimes there are pragmatics involved. (With respect, Trollkiller, you yourself said that you'd be willing to be a test case challenging the TSA, but only if someone else provided the money. Isn't defending your personal liberty worth going into bankruptcy? Or are you lazy or fearful?)
I'm trying not to get this too far off-topic (and, yes, failing miserably, thank you very much). But telling the geeky kid that it's his own fault that the playground bully took his lunch money is just plain wrong.
May 18, 2009 | 10:16 pm
#102
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,015
I notice the great, much lauded but seldom produced Test Case has never materialized, and obviously the affront to freedom encountered by virtually everyone ELSE posting here is not sufficient to keep you away from the security lines.
Recidivism will out: on both sides of the CP.
I believe you folks have the entire choreography of this dismal dance down to a sad, predictable science.
And you keep showing up to confront each other, and TSA keeps slapping paxs in the face in public with no noticeable consequence, constitutional or otherwise.
Okay, this is beginning to get boring, even to one-note Lumpy...
Recidivism will out: on both sides of the CP.
I believe you folks have the entire choreography of this dismal dance down to a sad, predictable science.
And you keep showing up to confront each other, and TSA keeps slapping paxs in the face in public with no noticeable consequence, constitutional or otherwise.
Okay, this is beginning to get boring, even to one-note Lumpy...
May 19, 2009 | 1:02 am
#103
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
I'm sorry; I still don't buy this.
First, even if we do collectively stand for our rights, we can still end up losing them. It's not like "standing for our rights" is sufficient in all cases.
Second, I'll buy that we may collectively get what we deserve, but not individually. I still don't think it's my fault when someone breaks into my house, and I've taken reasonable precautions to secure it. I didn't force someone else to commit B&E against me.
First, even if we do collectively stand for our rights, we can still end up losing them. It's not like "standing for our rights" is sufficient in all cases.
Second, I'll buy that we may collectively get what we deserve, but not individually. I still don't think it's my fault when someone breaks into my house, and I've taken reasonable precautions to secure it. I didn't force someone else to commit B&E against me.
I think that was what TSORon was saying.
Third, there are other reasons someone might not "stand for their rights" besides laziness and fear. Sometimes there are pragmatics involved. (With respect, Trollkiller, you yourself said that you'd be willing to be a test case challenging the TSA, but only if someone else provided the money. Isn't defending your personal liberty worth going into bankruptcy? Or are you lazy or fearful?)
I'm trying not to get this too far off-topic (and, yes, failing miserably, thank you very much). But telling the geeky kid that it's his own fault that the playground bully took his lunch money is just plain wrong.
I'm trying not to get this too far off-topic (and, yes, failing miserably, thank you very much). But telling the geeky kid that it's his own fault that the playground bully took his lunch money is just plain wrong.
Unfortunately that is not my problem. I have no house to hock for legal fees, I have no savings to tap for legal fees, I can't sell my car for more than enough to cover one billable hour of legal fees. I can't afford the filing fees to defend this myself. This is not a case of being scared of losing the money, this is a case of the money simply not being there.
All I have at my disposal to offer is myself, so that is what I have done.
Offering myself still holds an incredible amount of personal risk. If the run in costs me my job I am stuck. I would have to go back to rent by the week hotels in the bad part of town just to have a roof. I would have to work day labor in hopes of keeping that roof.
I offer me, what do you offer? (serious question, not a slap)
May 19, 2009 | 6:53 am
#104
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
That is a fair question, is the fight worth bankruptcy? Yes it most certainly is. Unfortunately that is not my problem. I have no house to hock for legal fees, I have no savings to tap for legal fees, I can't sell my car for more than enough to cover one billable hour of legal fees. I can't afford the filing fees to defend this myself. This is not a case of being scared of losing the money, this is a case of the money simply not being there. All I have at my disposal to offer is myself, so that is what I have done.
According to TSORon, since you refuse to defend your rights at a TSA checkpoint, you deserve to lose those rights. The fact that you don't have the financial means to defend those rights is irrelevant. Conclusion: rights only belong to people who have the means (financially, primarily) to defend those rights.
And that conclusion bothers me. This is supposed to be a democracy, not a feudal society where only the aristocracy have rights and the serfs have none. Having rights shouldn't depend on the ability to hire a lawyer.
And yes, I know that the real world doesn't work that way; the rich always have more options than the poor. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make it better.
A cheering section?
Seriously, there are lots of things in the world to care about, and I care about other things more passionately than this issue. So I'll stick with the whole "petition the government for a redress of grievances" approach. There's no reason why the problem can't be approached from multiple directions.
Absolutely. Thanks for a thoughtful response.
May 19, 2009 | 7:00 am
#105
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
I'm sorry; I still don't buy this.
First, even if we do collectively stand for our rights, we can still end up losing them. It's not like "standing for our rights" is sufficient in all cases.
Second, I'll buy that we may collectively get what we deserve, but not individually. I still don't think it's my fault when someone breaks into my house, and I've taken reasonable precautions to secure it. I didn't force someone else to commit B&E against me.
Third, there are other reasons someone might not "stand for their rights" besides laziness and fear. Sometimes there are pragmatics involved. (With respect, Trollkiller, you yourself said that you'd be willing to be a test case challenging the TSA, but only if someone else provided the money. Isn't defending your personal liberty worth going into bankruptcy? Or are you lazy or fearful?)
I'm trying not to get this too far off-topic (and, yes, failing miserably, thank you very much). But telling the geeky kid that it's his own fault that the playground bully took his lunch money is just plain wrong.
First, even if we do collectively stand for our rights, we can still end up losing them. It's not like "standing for our rights" is sufficient in all cases.
Second, I'll buy that we may collectively get what we deserve, but not individually. I still don't think it's my fault when someone breaks into my house, and I've taken reasonable precautions to secure it. I didn't force someone else to commit B&E against me.
Third, there are other reasons someone might not "stand for their rights" besides laziness and fear. Sometimes there are pragmatics involved. (With respect, Trollkiller, you yourself said that you'd be willing to be a test case challenging the TSA, but only if someone else provided the money. Isn't defending your personal liberty worth going into bankruptcy? Or are you lazy or fearful?)
I'm trying not to get this too far off-topic (and, yes, failing miserably, thank you very much). But telling the geeky kid that it's his own fault that the playground bully took his lunch money is just plain wrong.
Deserves got nothing to do with it, many times.