Posted on 11/24/2010 5:34:26 PM PST by Nachum
And if the Times Square bomber was successful, would you be okay with TSA officers pulling people out of their cars at roadblocks and doing the same thing? And fining them $11,000 for non-compliance?
Please see post #21
I did read the article, and the authors contention is absolutely laughable. While the right to interstate travel is a right, there is nothing anywhere which States that one has a right to travel by “a means of their choice.”
Under that logic, I suppose if I decide that I have a right to travel via a G5, then I have some Constitutional right to do so? Really now?
This idiot makes the juvenile assumption that a right to travel is synonymous with a specific mode of travel. They are not. One is not the other. One has the freedom to enter or leave a State under the P or I clause of Article IV. However, there is absolutely no Constitutional guarantee to any specific mode of travel. If you want to pretend there is one, you are no better than the judicial activists who made up a “right to abortion” whole-cloth.
This is what happens when you get a libertine with no legal training trying to quote things completely out of his field of expertise.
I’m too busy reading post #20. But I do like and support your tagline.
Why do you cite an apple to reference an orange?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."
"The words are: Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. The subject to be regulated is commerce; and our Constitution being, as was aptly said at the bar, one of enumeration and not of definition, to as certain the extent of the power it becomes necessary to settle the meaning of the word. Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more - it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse. The mind can scarcely conceive a system for regulating commerce between nations which shall exclude all laws concerning navigation, which shall be silent on the admission of the vessels of the one nation into the ports of the other, and be confined to prescribing rules for the conduct of individuals in the actual employment of buying and selling or of barter. If commerce does not include navigation, the government of the Union has no direct power over that subject, and can make no law prescribing what shall constitute American vessels, or requiring that they shall be navigated by American seamen. Yet this power has been exercised from the commencement of the government, has been exercised with the consent of all, and. has been understood by all to be a commercial regulation. All America understands, and has uniformly understood, the word commerce to comprehend navigation. The word used in the Constitution, then, comprehends, and has been always understood to comprehend, navigation within its meaning; and a power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted as if that term had been added to the word commerce. To what commerce does this power extend? The Constitution informs us to commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. It has, we believe, been universally admitted that these words comprehend every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreign nations. No sort of trade can be carried on between this country and any other to which this power does not extend. It has been truly said that commerce, as the word is used in the Constitution, is a unit, every part of which is indicated by the term. If this be the admitted meaning of the word in its application to foreign nations, it must carry the same meaning throughout the sentence and remain a unit, unless there be some plain intelligible cause which alters it..." (John Marshall) Gibbons v. Ogden.
What you say is true, however I can’t recall the last time I was scanned or groped at the DMV. I also don’t recall being scanned or groped when pulled over for breaking a law(traffic). If allowed, the powers that be want to expand this to all forms of motorized travel. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Are you that afraid that you would be willing to give up some liberties and freedom for some apparent security? What if the terrorist decide to go for the low hanging fruit instead? Large gatherings like sporting venues, Million man marches, Glenn Beck rallies or any large church? Do we then ban the gathering of large groups of people for their own safety? 9/11 was not a failure of airport security, it was a government failure to do it’s job. Failure of government to investigate people wanting to learn to fly but not learning to land. Failure to expel these same people who were here on expired visas. Failure to prevent the ‘underwear’ bomber from boarding even though he had no passport and was on the terror watch list. I guess it comes down to a simple choice, what’s the saying, ‘Get busy living or get busying dying’. It appears some have decided on the latter.
Answer the question:
“And if the Times Square bomber was successful, would you be okay with TSA officers pulling people out of their cars at roadblocks and doing the same thing? And fining them $11,000 for non-compliance?”
I went through El Paso this morning and they have three machines sitting there and no one went through any of them
So the government can actually force you to fly if you want to travel. Here I had the silly notion that an individual had the freedom to choose to fly, drive or walk anytime and anyhwere they wanted.
Using Supreme Court rulings to prove what the US Constitution means? Yeah, I should let the likes of Sotomayer and Kagan define it for me. That’s sarcasm btw. The SCOTUS has shredded the constitution for a long, long time. It has ruled “public use” means government has the right to hand my private property to a private entity for virtually any reason whatsoever, “freedom of religion” means freedom from religion, “citizen” includes illegal aliens and enemy combatants, and searches are “reasonable” whenever Janet Napolitano thinks so.
Sorry, but I can read my constitution and my bible. I guess that makes me a bitter clinger, aka patriot.
You do know that the Motor Vehicle Codes for all 50 States only mandate drivers licenses for commercial and government vehicles, and only while they are being used for business - right?
You want to polish your boots and whip that little swagger stick around, you'd best be learning the law first.
If you don't like the educational requirement, you don't have to dictate.
you spew the mantra “Flying on a commercial carrier is no more a Constitutional Right than having a Driver’s License is a Constitutional Right.”
Guess what? YOU ARE EITHER DELIBERATELY CARRYING WATER FOR THE DEPSOTS OF YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE FACTS. Either way, this is part of the problem. The Jack Booters spit “Flying is not a right!” The media parrots it in league with the despots.
HOWEVER: the law says different: Remember this, people.
49 U.S.C. § 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/49/VII/A/I/401/40103
(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit. - (1) The United
States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the
United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace
Acutally, the right to travel, which included driving a vehicle in the early days of the automobile, was indeed a constitutional right. Such constitutional rights are infringed when we ALLOW governments to license the activity.
As far as flying, if the government were not involved, then flying would be purely a contractual arrangement between you and a private carrier providing a service; not a right. However, you would have the constitutional right to fly yourself if you had a plane; except that flying a plane is now a licensed activity. Arguing the necessity to license such activities as driving or flying is another matter.
Since the government subsidizes virtually all commercial air traffic in one way or another it is no longer a purely commercial agreement between you and the airlines. The Fedgov is a defacto silent partner that has inserted itself in the private agreement between you and the airlines.
As such, the Fedgov gets to have a say in who gets to fly. However, the constitution was written specifically to prevent the Fedgov from violating individual rights and they certainly do have the right to molest you before they allow you fly.
We voted that out 2 years ago.
Cool! Next time I get my notice from the Secretary of State to renew my Driver's License, I'll just ignore it. I only drive my private vehicle for personal use, so I don't need that piece of plastic anymore.
Tell you what. Go to Maryland or Virginia, rent a Cessna, and buzz the capitol for a while. Then we’ll see how your 49 U.S.C. § 40103 holds up.
I equate them to “Christians” who scour the Bible looking for scriptures that somehow justify whatever they want to do. I can read the 4th Amendment for myself.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
“Shall not be violated” is pretty strong language. If government agents determine what is and what isn’t reasonable, then the first part of the 4th is rendered meaningless. Janet Napolitano clearly thinks the nude scans and genital gropes are reasonable, so there you have it. I guess we just need to submit.
As for the second part, I guess we’re supposed to believe it has absolutely nothing to do with the first part, because they are separated by a comma. Yet, the second part even mentions the warrants pertain to searches.
The US Constitution created a federal government of limited and enumerated powers. Everything else was reserved to the States or We the People. Of course there’s disagreement, but my point is simply that any time there’s doubt, something not clearly enumerated as a federal power, one should default to LESS government and more We the People. That keeps with the overall intent of the document, doesn’t it?
BTW, same thing goes with so-called Christians who take verses out of context or reinterpret them to try and get around something they don’t like. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind” is pretty clear.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Amendment IV, U.S. Constitution
On the other side: Your RIGHT TO FLY! per:
49 U.S.C. § 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/49/VII/A/I/401/40103
(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit. - (1) The United
States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the
United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace
**************anyone violating your rights on the above is breaking the law. Any police officer that sides with them against you is also breaking the law AS WELL AS the Oath of Office he/she took to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION - against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.
I just wish I had deep pockets, because I would, if accosted, take them all all the way to the SCOTUS
You make a valid point. One of which I had not thought.
However, in terms of your logic, one could say that because our children are sent to govt schools, teachers would have the right to molest them. We do not have a choice but to send our children to school. We do have a choice to use the government school, private, or homeschool.
In relating to air travel, as you say, there is private air travel, which is then licensed by the government.
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.