Posted on 11/23/2010 11:03:40 AM PST by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
Maybe it was the video of the three-year old getting molested, maybe it was the sexual assault victim having to cry her way through getting groped, maybe it was the father watching teenage TSA officers joke about his attractive daughter.
'Whatever it was, this issue didn’t sit right with me. We shouldn’t be required to do this simply to get into our own country.'
As a result, Mr Kernan informed staff he did not want to go through the infamous Backscatter imaging machine.
He was told he would have to undergo an invasive pat-down search, but again politely told staff that he would consider any contact with his genital areas as assault.
After being told that the two options were TSA policy, he replied: ' I disagree with the policy, and I think that it is unconstitutional.
'As a US citizen, I have the right to move freely within my country as long as I can demonstrate proof of citizenship and have demonstrated no reasonable cause to be detained.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Actually, it is.
See 49 U.S.C. § 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace, section (a)(2): "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."
It irked me too. I AM a diehard Constitutional rights advocate.
You too! Get some tail!
I mean, uhhh, turkey.
I agree.
Thats why my entire quote was, “Flying is not a right, but grabbing my crotch or my kid’s IS? WRONG.”
I think this argument should have been nuked immediately by every conservative voice out there.
Maybe you should learn some manners noob.
Been a Freeper under another screenname since 1998. Attended a Crawford Texas rally and met Jim a few years ago.
You can go away now, if you like.
Lots of folks keep saying that and it demonstrates that you do not understand how much the rules of the tyranny have changed in the last week to 10 days. Most of those tickets were probably bought 30-60 days ago or longer.
I plan on it!!! Back at you (and I know you will)!!
The District Court was in error in dismissing the indictment as to this paragraph. The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.
Empasis mine. There are several other excellent references and quotes. I'll be bringing a copy of this and some of the referenced caselaw with me next time I fly. :-)
In Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 , invalidating a California law which impeded the free interstate passage of the indigent, the Court based its reaffirmation of the federal right of interstate travel upon the Commerce Clause. This ground of decision was consistent with precedents firmly establishing that the federal commerce [383 U.S. 745, 759] power surely encompasses the movement in interstate commerce of persons as well as commodities. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196, 203 ; Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U.S. 204, 218 -219; Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 320 ; United States v. Hill, 248 U.S. 420, 423 . It is also well settled in our decisions that the federal commerce power authorizes Congress to legislate for the protection of individuals from violations of civil rights that impinge on their free movement in interstate commerce. Mitchell v. United States, 313 U.S. 80 ; Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816 ; Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454 ; Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 , Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 .
Although there have been recurring differences in emphasis within the Court as to the source of the constitutional right of interstate travel, there is no need here to canvass those differences further. 16 All have agreed that the right exists. Its explicit recognition as one of the federal rights protected by what is now 18 U.S.C. 241 goes back at least as far as 1904. United States v. Moore, 129 F. 630, 633. We reaffirm it now. 17Although there have been recurring differences in emphasis within the Court as to the source of the constitutional right of interstate travel, there is no need here to canvass those differences further. 16 All have agreed that the right exists. Its explicit recognition as one of the federal rights protected by what is now 18 U.S.C. 241 goes back at least as far as 1904. United States v. Moore, 129 F. 630, 633. We reaffirm it now. 17 [383 U.S. 745, 760] [383 U.S. 745, 760]
Thanks for digging up the case citations - I was too lazy to do it ;-)
I also think that there may be personal liability under section 1983 for civil rights violations. The Bivens case is also relevant.
Great cite Laz. See also post 49. The supreme court has ruled on our right to travel many times.
I’m flying in December. If they are still pushing this present insanity, I’ll go in well armed.
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.