6 ms·

>Where in the Bill of Rights are you guaranteed the right to air travel? Right here in the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain ri

>Where in the Bill of Rights are you guaranteed the right to air travel? Right here in the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The ninth probably should have come first, because that worldview is far more important than any list of specific rights. A free man does as he pleases.

rottencupcakes 16y ago
I agree with you. But now that government is meddling, the waters get murky. All of a sudden it's your government telling you that you cannot fly and not United Airlines or SFO simple refusing service to a customer or two. If nude scanning is a constitutional infraction, why didn't anyone mention this in response to the 'unreasonable searches and seizures' of my 'effects' (x-ray'ing my personal belongings, rummaging through my bag, etc etc) that has been going on for decades? If you only focus your outrage on this trivial, narrow issue, you are being played.
- whackedspinach 16y ago
  This is exactly what I have been saying. I don't really understand why no one thinks this is a problem. I remember asking my mother as a kid why they were allowed to do that (having learned my Bill of Rights). She's a prosecutor, so I figured she knows the law. she said (and still does) that it is all there for our protection. If I was going to blow something up, I'd use a bus, train, or even the security line at the airport. Why bother with getting through security? I'm not sure about international travel, but searches for domestic flights are unconstitutional. Now, how do we effectively fight that?
  - pinchyfingers 16y ago
    Why bother getting through security indeed. There are plenty of targets available to would be terrorists. Airport security has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the self interest of bloated bureaucracy and government contractors. One of the driving forces behind the body scanners is the Chertoff Group, owned by the former Homeland Security secretary. Security measures are a money grab and mechanism for keeping people fearful and obedient, not a way of keeping anyone safe.
- mseebach 16y ago
  It's the word "unreasonable". Regular x-rays and metal detectors can be shown to have stopped a very large proportion of items immediately threatening to passenger safety, and are thus to be considered reasonable. Backscatter have no such advantage (in fact, it seems unlikely they could even have stopped 9/11) and are therefore considered unreasonable. YMMV, but I don't consider myself "played" for subjecting myself to the less intrusive searches. I do feel like an idiot having to pull out my laptop and toothpaste and having to throw out any drinks.
  - astine 16y ago
    "Regular x-rays and metal detectors can be shown to have stopped a very large proportion of items immediately threatening to passenger safety" By that logic however, x-rays machines and metal detectors should never have been permitted in the first place because when they were first introduced they had no track record of utility either. You're right that it's the definition of the word "unreasonable" that's the sticky issue, but I don't think that it's as clear cut as you say it is..
kgo 16y ago
But once again, that presupposes flying in an airplane a fundamental human right. And if it is, is flying on a commercial airliner a human right? You can avoid the search by volunteering to pay more to fly on a private jet. And if flying is a human right why can't I make a homemade airplane and fly whenever and wherever I want, without registering a flight plan with the FAA? Or use a jetpack?
- maxawaytoolong 16y ago
  I don't buy the argument that since flying is not a "fundamental human right" makes it ok for the government to flout the 4th amendment in this particular circumstance. It would be just as egregious if federal employees were stationed for pat downs and full body scans at the World Series or your local Halloween parade. No pat down, no trick or treat for you! I find all the Republican arguments that begin with "the constitution applies, except when..." a bit disturbing, frankly.
  - kgo 16y ago
    I'm not a supporter of the TSA by any means, but if you're going to enforce the ninth amendment completely literally, you can just come up with more and more ridiculous examples of things that we're doing now that are completely unconstitutional. What specifically enumerated power allows the federal government to create the FDA, robbing me of my right to sell food with ground glass in it, or to sell pills that give you cancer? What specifically enumerated power allows them to rob me of my right to pour radioactive sludge into a river that's on my property? If you want to take the Super-libertarian Ron Paul approach, and say they shouldn't be doing these things, that's fine. But that strict interpretation of the Ninth Amendment isn't in practice today.
    - rottencupcakes 16y ago
      What terrible examples. The FDA, as discussed in the Boat Captain thread, is entirely unnecessary. One potential option, as mentioned, was tort liability for all things not disclosed when the pills were sold. Clearly defined water rights would more than properly solve number two. Learn something about other political views before making ridiculous statements. There's no need to write it off by citing some Christian quasi-libertarian who for some reason liberals have adopted as the poster child of libertarianism. Probably just to defame it in the minds of mindless liberal voters.

rottencupcakes 16y ago

I agree with you. But now that government is meddling, the waters get murky. All of a sudden it's your government telling you that you cannot fly and not United Airlines or SFO simple refusing service to a customer or two. If nude scanning is a constitutional infraction, why didn't anyone mention this in response to the 'unreasonable searches and seizures' of my 'effects' (x-ray'ing my personal belongings, rummaging through my bag, etc etc) that has been going on for decades? If you only focus your outrage on this trivial, narrow issue, you are being played.

whackedspinach 16y ago
This is exactly what I have been saying. I don't really understand why no one thinks this is a problem. I remember asking my mother as a kid why they were allowed to do that (having learned my Bill of Rights). She's a prosecutor, so I figured she knows the law. she said (and still does) that it is all there for our protection. If I was going to blow something up, I'd use a bus, train, or even the security line at the airport. Why bother with getting through security? I'm not sure about international travel, but searches for domestic flights are unconstitutional. Now, how do we effectively fight that?
- pinchyfingers 16y ago
  Why bother getting through security indeed. There are plenty of targets available to would be terrorists. Airport security has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the self interest of bloated bureaucracy and government contractors. One of the driving forces behind the body scanners is the Chertoff Group, owned by the former Homeland Security secretary. Security measures are a money grab and mechanism for keeping people fearful and obedient, not a way of keeping anyone safe.
mseebach 16y ago
It's the word "unreasonable". Regular x-rays and metal detectors can be shown to have stopped a very large proportion of items immediately threatening to passenger safety, and are thus to be considered reasonable. Backscatter have no such advantage (in fact, it seems unlikely they could even have stopped 9/11) and are therefore considered unreasonable. YMMV, but I don't consider myself "played" for subjecting myself to the less intrusive searches. I do feel like an idiot having to pull out my laptop and toothpaste and having to throw out any drinks.
- astine 16y ago
  "Regular x-rays and metal detectors can be shown to have stopped a very large proportion of items immediately threatening to passenger safety" By that logic however, x-rays machines and metal detectors should never have been permitted in the first place because when they were first introduced they had no track record of utility either. You're right that it's the definition of the word "unreasonable" that's the sticky issue, but I don't think that it's as clear cut as you say it is..

kgo 16y ago

But once again, that presupposes flying in an airplane a fundamental human right. And if it is, is flying on a commercial airliner a human right? You can avoid the search by volunteering to pay more to fly on a private jet. And if flying is a human right why can't I make a homemade airplane and fly whenever and wherever I want, without registering a flight plan with the FAA? Or use a jetpack?

maxawaytoolong 16y ago
I don't buy the argument that since flying is not a "fundamental human right" makes it ok for the government to flout the 4th amendment in this particular circumstance. It would be just as egregious if federal employees were stationed for pat downs and full body scans at the World Series or your local Halloween parade. No pat down, no trick or treat for you! I find all the Republican arguments that begin with "the constitution applies, except when..." a bit disturbing, frankly.
- kgo 16y ago
  I'm not a supporter of the TSA by any means, but if you're going to enforce the ninth amendment completely literally, you can just come up with more and more ridiculous examples of things that we're doing now that are completely unconstitutional. What specifically enumerated power allows the federal government to create the FDA, robbing me of my right to sell food with ground glass in it, or to sell pills that give you cancer? What specifically enumerated power allows them to rob me of my right to pour radioactive sludge into a river that's on my property? If you want to take the Super-libertarian Ron Paul approach, and say they shouldn't be doing these things, that's fine. But that strict interpretation of the Ninth Amendment isn't in practice today.
  - rottencupcakes 16y ago
    What terrible examples. The FDA, as discussed in the Boat Captain thread, is entirely unnecessary. One potential option, as mentioned, was tort liability for all things not disclosed when the pills were sold. Clearly defined water rights would more than properly solve number two. Learn something about other political views before making ridiculous statements. There's no need to write it off by citing some Christian quasi-libertarian who for some reason liberals have adopted as the poster child of libertarianism. Probably just to defame it in the minds of mindless liberal voters.