Posted on 11/24/2010 5:34:26 PM PST by Nachum
I got pulled over the other day in a speed trap. I did not get my junk scanned but my wallet definitely got scammed.
Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human rights concept that the constitutions of numerous states respect. It asserts that a citizen of a state, in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others,[1] and to leave that state and return at any time. Some immigrants’ rights advocates assert that human beings have a fundamental human right to mobility not only within a state but between states.
Ya got at least one thing right - your ID name
I would imagine that Bin Laden is also laughing at the thought of you showing off your naked azz on command to strangers in an airport.
You can stomp your feet and throw a tantrum and claim that these searches are illegal all that you want, but it won’t change the reality that they are not.
They were off in Nashville, I’ve been told.
It’s not the total that counts according to these:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2631678/posts?page=41
http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=114
The probable cause requirement applies to the issuance of a warrant (and arrest without a warrant). Probable cause can also give the right to search without a warrant. Articulable reasonable suspicion can give the right for an investigative detention and a protective frisk. Finally, searches based on consent (either express or implied) do not need any probable cause or suspicion whatsoever.
Libertines want to read things into the Constitution that are not there. These people are as great a threat as far-left liberals who also want to read things into the Constitution that are not there. The moment we begin adding things into the Constitution that don’t exist, (such as a right to fly) then the Constitution becomes meaningless.
Yeah genius, that has already been posted once. I already pointed out that it defeats your statement. A statutory provision is not the same thing as a Constitutional right. Congress gives one the right to travel, subject to the numerous provisions in the United States Code. The existence of the latter automatically defeats your initial contention. You have a right to fly, subject to the regulations that Congress enacts, under the Constitutional authority granted by the Commerce Clause. If you don’t like it, change the Constitution.
Next time you cut & paste something from another rambling lunatic on a message board, at least attempt to conduct some real legal analysis on it.
Really? You are now resorting to cutting and pasting from Wikipedia? It's patently obvious that you are in way above your head kid. Pass the bar and get a J.D., Learn to conduct some actual legal analysis, then you can get back to me. ;)
It is this kind of arrogant elitism that has gotten this country in the sorry shape it's in. If the common man who does not have the highly-vaunted "J.D." is not allowed to discuss the laws of the land and the Constitution, indeed, is said not even to be able to understand them without the "J.D.," then what is the point of having a country founded on self-government anyway? Let's just go ahead and conceded that we are an oligarchy controlled by the power elites, who tell the peasants what they will and will not do, and when they will do it, and what position they will do it in. Let's just go ahead and do away with freedom, if everybody has to be a lawyer to understand the laws which limit it at every turn.
fw998: “You can stomp your feet and throw a tantrum and claim that these searches are illegal all that you want, but it won’t change the reality that they are not.”
I’m not stomping my feet or throwing a tantrum. If it makes you feel like you’re making a better argument by implying I’m childish and emotional, well good for you.
As for the legality of a particular act, you may be technically correct. Janet Napolitano, for example, either shares your opinion or is knowingly committing a crime. Personally, I prefer to think she’s acting with good intentions—not that that makes it right.
The government has the power to make and interpret the law, so technically they can do whatever they want. Kagan, Sotomayer, and their ilk might rule these searches are legal. It’s within their power. In that case, you’d win the debating point but lose your liberty. If the 4th Amendment permits this, then there is no longer any right to be secure in your person, papers, or effects on public property. You can defend that if you wish, but forgive me for not celebrating the loss of liberty with you.
freedomwarrior998’s posts drip with condescension and elitism. I keep making comparisons to religion. Here’s one: freedomwarrior998 is like the Catholic Church, and we’re acting like Martin Luther.
http://www.who2.com/ask/martinluther.html
You see, the US Constitution is an arcane manuscript written in an obscure language (English circa 1787). We who are not properly trained simply cannot grasp the “penumbras formed by emanations” from the original text. It is beyond us.
A wise person would bow down before the high priests, er lawyers, as they enlighten us with their profound wisdom. You see, the US Constitution DOES permit them to search you for any reason. It’s right there in the 4th, you dimwit. Now move along like a good prole. (extreme sarcasm)
Flying on a commercial carrier is no more a Constitutional Right than having a Driver's License is a Constitutional Right.
Federal law establishes a right to air travel.
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."
Hat tip to Lazamataz for this tidbit.
The U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on our right to travel in general. See U.S. vs Guest. It's pretty unequivocal. The phrase "and other instrumentalities" is particularly important in this particular topic.
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 in the opinion.
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]
Freeper AndyJackson points us to this...
18 USC §241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death
18 USC § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Check out my post on 29. freedomwarrior998 actually believes that if you choose to walk someplace the government has the legal authority to intervene and force you fly to your destination instead. Incredible what some people believe.
Check out my post on 29. freedomwarrior998 actually believes that if you choose to walk someplace the government has the legal authority to intervene and force you fly to your destination instead. Incredible what some people believe.
You are absolutely incorrect. Patently and completely incorrect. I don’t subscribe to hidden rights in “penumbras and emanations”. Doing so is profoundly dangerous. Just like Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia, I believe that we need to read the text and strictly construe the text. You are the one attempting to read a “right to fly” into the Constitution. There is no more a “right to fly” than there is a “right to abortion” or a “right to same-sex ‘marriage’”. When you attempt to add things in the Constitution that are not there, you completely destroy the Constitution.
You are simply attempting to read something into the Constitution that doesn’t exist, and I called you on it, and now you are calling names and comparing yourself to Martin Luther.
As for “condescension and elitism”, I find that charge laughable. I cannot stand people who destroy the Constitution, whether they are libertines or liberals. Libertines who want to read new “rights” into the Constitution are just as dangerous to our system of government as liberals who want to do so. The fact that you might like a particular “right” doesn’t make it A-OK. If you give judges free reign to read things into the Constitution that are not there, you WILL be ruled by an oligarchy.
That’s the point I am making.
No, I do not, and your tactic is a wonderful example of a logical fallacy.
The Constitution guarantees a right to travel, it says NOTHING of the means. I don’t think you realize how dangerous your line of thinking is. The moment you open up the Constitution to new “hidden rights” you are opening up the Constitution to exploitation by those who want to destroy the country. Your line of thinking can support a socialist who says that we must find a right to “equal means of travel.” Do you seriously contend that since poor people can’t afford to fly, the government must use your money to subsidize their “right” to travel? That’s exactly where finding “new rights” leads.
You are attempting to do what socialists do and find a right that doesn’t exist. That line of thinking is dangerous to a Free Society.
The Constitution does give the Congress the SPECIFIC enumerated authority to regulate interstate travel, of which air travel is one facet. The founders did this for very good reason. Think about the chaos that would occur if each State were free to enact their own regulations on such travel. Hence, the power to regulate was given to Congress for the purpose of facilitating free trade between the States.
You are now attempting to re-write the Constitution to suit your own Utopian vision that is impossible in the real world. That’s not Conservative. That’s not Constitutional governance. It’s tyranny. Just your specific flavor.
Only the ignorant retreat to strawmen. No one said the 4th Amendment says you can be searched anywhere for any reason. Hence, you invented that strawman because you don't like what the Constitution actually says.
As others do here, you confuse the right to travel with the right to a particular means of travel. The Constitution is very clear, and SPECIFICALLY grants to CONGRESS the right to regulate interstate commerce. (The fact that you cite to the United States Code does not help your position, as the statutory right to use the airspace is NOT the same thing as a Constitutional right, and is subject to the other regulations in the U.S.C. that you ignore.)
Let’s look at the Constitution itself.
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.”
So, what is “Commerce?”
“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.
Are you suggesting that I have a Constitutional right to a G5 aircraft? How about a BMW? After all, if we have a right to a particular means of travel, why shouldn’t I travel in the way that I so choose?
The next step is government mandated egality and using the tax dollars of one to buy a BMW for another. This isn’t what the Constitution says.
Further, I highly doubt that you have a title to that 747 that you want to ride on at the airport. Who does own that Title? That’s right, the AIRLINE. So now you are suggesting that a private business MUST grant you a right to use its airplane? It’s all there in the Constitution right? [/sarcasm]
What you are suggesting is no different that the socialists who claim that we should have a “right” to health-care.
What exactly is hidden about choosing which way you want to travel? If you want to walk someplace the government has no authority to make you fly or drive to your destination. There is nothing hidden about choosing your mode of travel.
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.