Well ... if I don't have a right not to have my home broken into, then why are breaking & entering, and theft, considered to be crimes in most (all?) places in the US?

The government can break in and take (seize) your home, given cause. They can make you move out, assuming they can show eminent domain.

Most rights are conditional things.....

Ah, but that ability of the government is limited, because of my rights:

I still think I have rights, independent of my ability (or willingness) to defend them. Failing to defend my rights (willingly or unwillingly) doesn't meant that I didn't have the rights in the first place; it merely means I'm being denied them.

An interesting argument, but it does not imply or state specifically that you have a right to own anything.

Interesting concepts. So, lets say that you want to own a 40mm grenade launcher, such as an M-203. Laws say that this is forbidden, are those laws unconstitutional? Just because you own an M-203, does not mean that you have a right to.

While that is true, to a point, the right to travel does not mean that you have an unrestricted right to do so. And it certainly does not mean that you have an unrestricted right to airline travel. Every form of travel has its rules and laws, and you are free to do any of them as long as you follow those rules or laws. Fail to do so and that right can be abridged or denied.

Don�t know if I would agree with that. Its my experience that tangents usually come from someone intentionally misquoting someone else, or nit-picking an argument because they hate to be proven wrong.

Like I just said, you misquote me.

Not sure I can disagree with that. Everyone remembers M Jackson, or OJ. Both with adequate cash to provide an excellent defense. But there are other ways of obtaining an �excellent defense� if one does not have the cash that celebrities have. The ACLU is one of many organizations that provide free legal services for causes that could benefit a larger segment of the population. There are others, others that don�t focus specifically on civil rights litigation.

�and if you cant afford one, one will be appointed to you free of charge�. Sounds familiar maybe?

In this I can agree 100% with you. Better is� better. We all should be working on that one term. Being poor does not mean that you don�t have options, it just means that yours are different than others.

It also doesn't specifically say that I don't have those rights, either. In particular, it says that the failure of the Constitution to mention those rights is not justification for denying those rights.

Sure, as long as those laws are consistent with the rest of decided law.

Now, let's turn the question around. Consider the TV in my house. There's no law explicitly giving me the right to own a TV. Does that give the police --- or anyone else --- the unconditional right to seize it from me? Of course not; theft is a crime in most jurisdictions.

Rights don't have to be explicitly enumerated in order to be rights. (It certainly helps if they're explicitly enumerated, of course.)

Agreed.

There used to be laws that said that Black people had to give up their seats to White people when riding on public buses. Those were laws governing a form of travel. Blacks who refused to follow those laws were denied the right to travel, or in some cases arrested.

Those laws remained in place until they were repeatedly challenged and finally overturned as being inconsistent with other laws (like the Fourteenth Amendment). They may have been "laws", but they weren't just, they weren't right, and they deserved to be struck down.

Now, we come around to modern airline travel. Some of the "rules" passengers have to follow are dictated by law; others are merely policies decided upon solely by the TSA. Are all of those "rules" just and right? Obviously, reasonable people can (and do) disagree on this point.

No one here is arguing that there are unconditional rights to airline travel. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't question the conditions that TSA puts on airline travel. Some of them are probably justified and sound; others may be less so. Hence, the ongoing debate.

Did you not just previously say:

I think that's a fair conclusion to be drawn from your statement.

That only applies if I'm arrested and charged with a crime. TSA can deny me access to the sterile area without having a LEO arrest me. In which case, my Miranda rights don't apply.

Besides, I didn't see OJ use public defenders in his criminal case. He felt like he'd get a better defense if he paid for lawyers, and he probably did. I read articles in the newspaper all the time about convicted felons who were assigned public defenders who provided a barely adequate defense, rather than a vigorous one, because they were working for free.

The sad fact remains that if you've got more money, you can assert more of your rights than someone else can. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. Because of that societal gap, I don't think we should say that people who don't assert their rights are, as you say, "get[ting] exactly what they deserve".

Opinions vary I suppose. Its not what I said, and I am usually very careful with how I phrase things. If you have chosen to imply a meaning other than that which I provided then that�s your decision.

Sorry, you misunderstood my reply. I was replying to the previous statement, not about anything having to do with TSA.

Ahh, �tis the nature of humans. There are exceptions to that rule as well, the occasional Public Defender that is not only competent but proactive. Rare though that may be.

Social commentary. Lots of things �should� be, like safe cars, clean water, and perfect healthcare. Sure would be nice. Its not asserting the rights that I feel is importing, its protecting them. No one is going to protect them for you, you must do it yourself.

So what are we supposed to infer from reading whatever it is you try to imply with your words?

That when a TSO gives their oath, it means TSOs should just follow the administrative SOPs orders? And that passengers deserve whatever loss of rights we get unless we defend them outside the checkpoint with letters to our representatives to change the laws, and test cases with supreme court rulings to limit TSA?

Maybe I've got poor reading comprehension skills, but there really isn't much else I get from what you write.

I believe he was only using the TSA as an example of a case where rights might theoretically be violated and the inability in that case to assert those rights as no lawyer will be appointed. The statement you replied to was a general rule based off of that example. (see below).

The heading for this forum states:
Is there no room in such a forum to talk about the way things ought to be, not merely resign oneself to the way things are now?

Improvement is the best option Jim. What I was saying is that there are many things that "should be", but those have to be tempered with a good dose of reality and common sense. What "should be" according to one may be a "No effing way" to another.

I am all for improvement. Improvement tempered with common sense, reality, and improvements meant to benefit the largest portion of the population possible. You can please some of the people some of the time� Security has always been a pain in the neck. Expensive, little return on investment, an overhead cost that some say we can live without. Well, at shopping malls we might survive without Paul Blart, but terrorism has a long and distinguished history of killing. Without security the terrorists win without opposition.

And no-one is suggesting that we live "without security". Security isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. The question is: what is the balance between security and personal liberty? What personal freedoms are we willing to forsake, for what incremental benefit in security? (Aside to everyone else ... please, don't go Ben Franklin on me ... I like that quote as much as everyone ...)

And terrorists can still "win" even in the presence of opposition. It all depends on how you define a "win".

The point of terrorism is to create terror. If I live my life in terror because I'm afraid a terrorist might crash an airplane, then the terrorists have already won without doing a thing. Conversely, if I refuse to live my life in terror, even as terrorists commit unspeakable acts, the terrorists can never win.

What you say is true, but if you're not willing to fight for them, then you're counting on other people to do it for you or trust they'll never come under attack.

Like I said, rights are human constructs and are subject to human manipulation.

Oh no, not I. I am in agreement with those statements 100%. But who would you pick as the individual or individuals to make those distinctions? Should we put it to a vote, or let our elected officials do their job (as they have done)? Who makes these decisions?

But you do take precautions, right? Just as you lock your door at night, buy security lighting, alarm systems, etc. TSA is a precaution. Not perfect, no promise to prevent terror attacks on civilian aircraft, just a promise to do the very best it can. In life there are no guarantees.