Many are embarassing themselves over TSA pat-downs

[Darth Cruel]

That was brilliantly stated. I wish I were so eloquent in my communication of how I feel about what is going on today. The good news is, I think the majority of people are seeing and expressing their dissatisfaction at how dysfunctional our leaders, government, and laws/policies/regulation agencies have become.

yes it was. it is just too bad that it has been stated brilliantly thousands of times to absolutley zero effect to improvement.

Blah, blah.

LOL...brilliant! I am racking my brain and I am pretty sure this is the most straightforward thing I have ever heard a lawyer say. And I am not saying lawyers are liars, I am simply saying that they tend to decorate arguments with a bunch of information that may or may not be pertenant to the issue. But "blah, blah" is just about as plain and simple as it gets. Hell, it is nearly inarguable in its simplicity. And I find that to be in direct contrast to what I am accustomed to from lawyers.

I feel I owe you a little insight to my attitude toward the legal doublespeak I dislike so much. I firmly believe that it is the cornerstone of political doublespeak as a huge number of our politicians are lawyers and use it to fool people in to voting for them.

The issue is with the TSA invading privacy. The "videographer" is just a distraction ... a countermeasure to take the focus off of the TSA. The videographer was a private citizen recording public activity that was forced into public by the TSA ... I don't care about the videographer.

SnakeDoc

I don't believe that the issue is the TSA invading privacy. I believe the TSA is just a scapegoat for someone who is looking for some attention. If the issue were privacy, the person could point the finger at a hundred other routine events that people practice every day in the regular living of their lives. And the complaint about privacy in this case is further unfounded as the search can be avoided by simply walking through the scanner. And to refuse to walk through the scanner based on health concerns simply has no support from proof...or even supporting evidence...of the danger of the scanner.

At the end of the day...I believe that some people are trying to get some attention by starting a fight where it is doing no good. I will be the first to admit that privacy has to have a time and place. But the citizens cried out for action after 9/11 and sent our government into a security frenzy which resulted in the activity being scrutinized in this thread. If they want the privacy back...causing a scene at an airport screening point is a pathetic place to do it.

The voting booths is where that should be handled...but...the citizens are failing there as well. And they are failing there, at least partially, because of doublespeak from the politicians.

Now, I understand perfectly that this post may be coming off as a nut-job who thinks they found the single issue that will heel the world if corrected (that being doublespeak). I realize it is not. It is simply one of the key issues and just happens to be the one I am addressing in this post along with aiming the effort for change in the right direction.

 

[karamazov80]

Eh, it could be worse.

 

[Mesa]

We need Paris Hilton or that other skank to do something stupid in public so we can all jump on that band wagon and judge them.

Until that happens...

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/i-jdDE6bFow?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/i-jdDE6bFow?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[The Ween]

Now the act of flying is a right granted by our creator?

That's like saying "free" health care is a right and you're entitled to it just for being born and living in the US.

If driving is a privilege, which it clearly is and can be taken away from you if you break the law, how is flying any different?

I guess it's only a right if you're an illegal?

 

[teemu]

Now the act of flying is a right granted by our creator?

That's like saying "free" health care is a right and you're entitled to it just for being born and living in the US.

If driving is a privilege, which it clearly is and can be taken away from you if you break the law, how is flying any different?

Once again, Traveling is a right...not a priviledge...especially driving!
Yes its a God given right first....why do people think its a priviledge? its absurd to even think this and even our Constitution gives us the right to travel.Just because some dimwit on the television,who wants to destroy the constitution, tells us otherwise doesnt mean its true.Stop believing what mainstream media tells you...its the propaganda machine filled with lies...they say the recession is over..do you believe that? while people are losing their homes and tent cities are becoming everwhere.(sorry to rant) but why do people want their slavery

 

[SnakeDoctor]

LOL...brilliant! I am racking my brain and I am pretty sure this is the most straightforward thing I have ever heard a lawyer say. And I am not saying lawyers are liars, I am simply saying that they tend to decorate arguments with a bunch of information that may or may not be pertenant to the issue. But "blah, blah" is just about as plain and simple as it gets. Hell, it is nearly inarguable in its simplicity. And I find that to be in direct contrast to what I am accustomed to from lawyers.

I feel I owe you a little insight to my attitude toward the legal doublespeak I dislike so much. I firmly believe that it is the cornerstone of political doublespeak as a huge number of our politicians are lawyers and use it to fool people in to voting for them.

For what its worth, I don't like lawyers much either. I just are one. Its a living. I'm a tax lawyer. You think politicians irritate you, try dealing with the IRS 5-days a week. Bureaucrats are the worst. But, Christ said go where the sinners are. Haha. I'm good at what I do ... but most people that know me say I don't really come off like a lawyer.

I don't believe that the issue is the TSA invading privacy. I believe the TSA is just a scapegoat for someone who is looking for some attention. If the issue were privacy, the person could point the finger at a hundred other routine events that people practice every day in the regular living of their lives. And the complaint about privacy in this case is further unfounded as the search can be avoided by simply walking through the scanner. And to refuse to walk through the scanner based on health concerns simply has no support from proof...or even supporting evidence...of the danger of the scanner.

At the end of the day...I believe that some people are trying to get some attention by starting a fight where it is doing no good. I will be the first to admit that privacy has to have a time and place. But the citizens cried out for action after 9/11 and sent our government into a security frenzy which resulted in the activity being scrutinized in this thread. If they want the privacy back...causing a scene at an airport screening point is a pathetic place to do it.

The voting booths is where that should be handled...but...the citizens are failing there as well. And they are failing there, at least partially, because of doublespeak from the politicians.

Now, I understand perfectly that this post may be coming off as a nut-job who thinks they found the single issue that will heel the world if corrected (that being doublespeak). I realize it is not. It is simply one of the key issues and just happens to be the one I am addressing in this post along with aiming the effort for change in the right direction.

The scanner is a search. The groping search can be avoided by doing the x-ray vision search instead? How comforting.

For me ... the issue is the TSA. I'm actually a law-and-order guy. I'm certainly not some sniveling ACLU schmuck. I don't mind reasonable security measures. I'm much more comfortable, for instance, with the government reviewing public library records than with body-scans or "pat-downs". Hell ... I'm pro-waterboarding. I just don't think these measures are reasonable.

Like I said, we'd be better off looking for terrorists than for weapons. Israel has much less air traffic, but we could likely learn something from their security measures.

As to your point about doublespeak ... point taken. We'd certainly be better off if people just said their peace. The law is nuanced and complicated ... right and wrong is not.

SnakeDoc

 

[Mister Ski]

Once again, Traveling is a right...not a priviledge...especially driving!
Yes its a God given right first....why do people think its a priviledge? its absurd to even think this and even our Constitution gives us the right to travel.Just because some dimwit on the television,who wants to destroy the constitution, tells us otherwise doesnt mean its true.Stop believing what mainstream media tells you...its the propaganda machine filled with lies...they say the recession is over..do you believe that? while people are losing their homes and tent cities are becoming everwhere.(sorry to rant) but why do people want their slavery

Until you show me where in the Constitution it says flying is a right, then you're wrong. Pure and simple.

 

[Deckard]

Flying is a right? Where do you people come from?

When the founding fathers were writing our Bill of Rights, I don't think flying airplanes crossed there minds. Remember all those cool Dog Fights in airplanes screaming across the battlefields of the Revolution? Neither do I.

Travel is not a right. It is a privilege and if you don't believe me commit a felony. Then get released on bail, and see if they let you travel wherever you want.

 

[Mister Ski]

Flying is a right? Where do you people come from?

When the founding fathers were writing our Bill of Rights, I don't think flying airplanes crossed there minds. Remember all those cool Dog Fights in airplanes screaming across the battlefields of the Revolution? Neither do I.

Travel is not a right. It is a privilege and if you don't believe me commit a felony. Then get released on bail, and see if they let you travel wherever you want.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

Until you show me where in the Constitution it says flying is a right, then you're wrong. Pure and simple.

Flying is a right? Where do you people come from? [...] Travel is not a right. It is a privilege and if you don't believe me commit a felony. Then get released on bail, and see if they let you travel wherever you want.

According to the Supreme Court, travel is a right (if you're interested in case law, see the freedom of movement, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law).

Traveling by air, however, is not a right ... which is why terror watch-lists are legal.

The freedom of movement has been listed among the "liberties" included in the Constitutional ban on depriving of "life, liberty or property without due process of law", and has also been included in the "privileges and immunites" of Citizenship under the "privileges and immunities" clause.

The right of travel cannot be infringed without due process ... a Court ordering you not to move due to indictment qualifies as due process.

SnakeDoc

 

[teemu]

Until you show me where in the Constitution it says flying is a right, then you're wrong. Pure and simple.

10th and 14th Ammendment

Q62. "I have a friend that told me that I have a constitutional right to travel in this country. He stated that to tax that right with driver's license fees, motor registration, license plate fees and a gas tax is unconstitutional and that some people resist this 'violation' in various degrees by challenging then in a court of law and eventually having them overturned. Is there any truth to this and what do you base your arguments on."

A. You don't have an explicitly stated constitutional right to travel within the country, but since you are not restricted from interstate travel, the 10th amendment says you have the right anyway. It could be reasonably argued that Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1, presumes the right to travel between states when it says that a citizen of one state shall have all the rights of a citizen of another state.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

and

The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.

It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.

As hard as it is for those in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.

 

[teemu]

Flying is a right? Where do you people come from?

When the founding fathers were writing our Bill of Rights, I don't think flying airplanes crossed there minds. Remember all those cool Dog Fights in airplanes screaming across the battlefields of the Revolution? Neither do I.

Travel is not a right. It is a privilege and if you don't believe me commit a felony. Then get released on bail, and see if they let you travel wherever you want.

dont break the law?

 

[Mister Ski]

10th and 14th Ammendment

Q62. "I have a friend that told me that I have a constitutional right to travel in this country. He stated that to tax that right with driver's license fees, motor registration, license plate fees and a gas tax is unconstitutional and that some people resist this 'violation' in various degrees by challenging then in a court of law and eventually having them overturned. Is there any truth to this and what do you base your arguments on."

A. You don't have an explicitly stated constitutional right to travel within the country, but since you are not restricted from interstate travel, the 10th amendment says you have the right anyway. It could be reasonably argued that Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1, presumes the right to travel between states when it says that a citizen of one state shall have all the rights of a citizen of another state.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

and

The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.

It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.

As hard as it is for those in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.

Not exactly. No where in your post does it say anything about FLYING. It mentions walking, automobiles, locomotives, roadways, etc. Not FLYING.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

10th and 14th Ammendment

Q62. "I have a friend that told me that I have a constitutional right to travel in this country. He stated that to tax that right with driver's license fees, motor registration, license plate fees and a gas tax is unconstitutional and that some people resist this 'violation' in various degrees by challenging then in a court of law and eventually having them overturned. Is there any truth to this and what do you base your arguments on."

A. You don't have an explicitly stated constitutional right to travel within the country, but since you are not restricted from interstate travel, the 10th amendment says you have the right anyway. It could be reasonably argued that Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1, presumes the right to travel between states when it says that a citizen of one state shall have all the rights of a citizen of another state.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

and

The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.

It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.

As hard as it is for those in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.

You 'exactly'ed yourself. Nice.

None of those cases include a right to travel by air, so may not be germane to this particular conversation. The fact that several people around here are wrong about the existence of a right to travel doesn't change the fact that the TSA isn't violating a right by telling people they can't fly.

Nor are they necessarily violating the 5th amendment ban against unreasonable searches. Pre-flight searches have been ruled reasonable ... though the invasiveness of these specific searches have not been ruled on (they could very well be ruled "unreasonable").

My point is ... you don't necessarily want to rest your argument on legalities.

SnakeDoc

 

[teemu]

Not exactly. No where in your post does it say anything about FLYING. It mentions walking, automobiles, locomotives, roadways, etc. Not FLYING.

Flying is travelling....its their loophole to say its otherwise...but believe what you want to believe...seems people want a police state and being enslaved

 

[teemu]

You 'exactly'ed yourself. Nice.

None of those cases include a right to travel by air, so may not be germane to this particular conversation. The fact that several people around here are wrong about the existence of a right to travel doesn't change the fact that the TSA isn't violating a right by telling people they can't fly.

Nor are they necessarily violating the 5th amendment ban against unreasonable searches. Pre-flight searches have been ruled reasonable ... though the invasiveness of these specific searches have not been ruled on (they could very well be ruled "unreasonable").

My point is ... you don't necessarily want to rest your argument on legalities.

SnakeDoc

I will do my part by not flying and hope the airports go bankrupt for violating the american people and their rights...this is all being setup for their police state and the peoples enslavement and control

 

[SnakeDoctor]

Flying is travelling....its their loophole to say its otherwise...but believe what you want to believe...seems people want a police state and being enslaved

The freedom of movement pretty much boils down to the freedom to go where you want. I'm not sure it is a conveyance-specific right.

If we have the right to fly ... are rights being violated when someone is not allowed to fly because they can't afford a ticket? What about someone (unconvicted, uncharged) on the terrorist watch-list? Where do you find justification for the right to travel on someone else's airplane? It would be unique to have rights extended to the use of someone else's property.

I will do my part by not flying and hope the airports go bankrupt for violating the american people and their rights...this is all being setup for their police state and the peoples enslavement and control

That's the rub. This isn't a violation of rights as much as it is a violation of good business practices. People don't want to be manhandled for the privilege of using your product. People are mad ... mad people get attention (politically and economically), and will eventually get results.

So ... more power to you.

SnakeDoc

 

[Deckard]

I will do my part by not flying and hope the airports go bankrupt for violating the american people and their rights...this is all being setup for their police state and the peoples enslavement and control

In which case your tax dollars will go to bail them out because if you think the airlines can go under and we could still function as a nation, your outta your mind. Its not 1950 anymore, people rely on air travel daily as a huge part of there work/buisiness.

 

[Bannister]

Flying is travelling....its their loophole to say its otherwise...but believe what you want to believe...seems people want a police state and being enslaved

I agree with you in that anybody and everybody has a right to fly. If you have your own airplane, you can fly away and I don't feel anybody should stop you. If you want to get on a commercial flight, you have to agree to their rules or tough ____. It is like this board. I have a right to type pretty much whatever the hell I feel like on the internet. I don't have the right to type whatever the hell I feel like on this message board.

 

[Mister Ski]

Flying is travelling....its their loophole to say its otherwise...but believe what you want to believe...seems people want a police state and being enslaved

Seriously?

Flying is a form of traveling and yes there is a right to travel but it does not mean to travel by any means necessary. If that were the case then why can't I travel in an F16? How about a space shuttle? Those are all forms of travel too. You have the RIGHT to pursue traveling by any means as long as you meet the criteria specific to those means - in the case of commercial airplanes it is the screening process.