Posted on 11/22/2010 7:04:07 PM PST by Walmartian
How come the airlines couldn't post a sign at the check in that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". After all they do own the airplanes. Right? Why is the TSA determining who can ride THEIR airplanes and who can't? The AIRLINES should have a person at the check in line that determines who can ride on THEIR planes? How come the airlines couldn't tell someone "Thanks but no thanks"? Take your business elsewhere. No explanations except we refuse to service you because WE OWN THIS AIRPLANE.
Federal airways. Different rules apply.
In short: the Commerce Clause.
I always say that this was one of the worst court decisions. It crippled the rights of business owners.
Sorry, but the airlines love the Feds taking over security. Saves them money and liability too.
Services which transport the public cannot discriminate .
NO SHIRT
NO SHOESNO SERVICE!
We could change the law back and the airlines could negotiate deals with people along the routes.
With today's computer capabilities at hand you could have competitive bidding ~ more or less like a really comprehensive ACDCS system like USPS used years back to regularize the custody and payment of mail sent by air.
The federal government really isn't needed in this process anymore.
You can’t use that wording anymore.
Actually the lunch counter owners property rights were being abridged by the states who had passed laws saying who they could or could not serve.
Segregation was the law not a option. You couldn't have a non-segregated lunch counter if you wanted to. It was against the law.
I always say that this was one of the worst court decisions. It crippled the rights of business owners.
Their rights had already been crippled by the state laws that told them who they could or could not serve and how. The only argument at that point was who had the most power, the state or the federal.
My personal opinion is that both should have been told to shove off.
Remember all the flak over trying to charge an obese person for two tickets because they took up more than one seat? Airlines catch all kinds of grief for trying to keep people off of flights.
Having the TSA do the determination relieves the airlines of liability. When you can't follow the money, you then follow the lawyers.
You’re heading in the right direction, but let’s focus that idea just a bit.
I think that the airlines have been getting of very easy in all of this because they have effectively handed their security problem off to the Federal Government. They sell the tickets and do virtually no screening themselves.
How was it possible for the Fruit of Kaboom bomber to buy a one way ticket, paid for in cash, by someone else, and board an International flight with no baggage, in this day and age?? It’s because the airline he flew did no security screening, or if they did it was the most incompetent job ever, and the airport he departed from let him on the plane. How is it possible to let a real terrorist with a real bomb in his britches onto a loaded airliner overseas, while if you want to get on the same airline for a return trip you get a virtual anal exam from the US Government??
The Constitution says that the Government may not lay their hands on you without probable cause to believe that you have committed some sort of crime. The circumstances under which your local Police Officer can lay his hands on you are very well defined, and even then there are limits to what the Police can do during a patdown to guarantee both your safety and the safety of the Police Officer. A Police Officer can pat you down, but he cannot strip you in public, or handle your genitalia, manipulate your surgical scars, inspect your breast prosthesis, pat down your children, or any of the other extremes we have been hearing about. If he did, he would be suspended.
Just because an un-elected Federal bureaucracy comes up with draconian actions like these intrusive searches, and has language inserted in your airline ticket receipt that says in effect that you forfeit your rights to privacy and agree to these intrusive searches as a condition of purchase of an airline ticket, does not make it Constitutional.
I hope there is some group out there right now preparing to file a request for an emergency stay on these searches until a Court of Law has a chance to review them and rule on their Constitutionality. Given the increasing number of disturbing personal horror stories, there are probably any number of Judges in this Country who have personally experienced one of these searches and would like nothing more than to order a Cease and Desist order.
Back to the airlines themselves, I think we are seeing a combination of them passing off their security problems, and a healthy measure of intimidation by the Federals who are telling them in no uncertain terms what they will and will not do. An object at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force. If the airlines start flying empty seats, the reaction will be swift and shrill. They are all flying on the thinnest of profit margins as it is, and they cannot afford to lose any more money. They need a swift kick in the ass to get their attention, because they have the means to solve a great deal of this problem without standing silently by and allowing the Federal Government to strip search their passengers.
rantmode/toggle/off...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.