Police State: TSA Searches 3-Year-Old In Wheelchair...

[Emma]

Since when have terrorists given a damn about using women and children to carry out their attacks? Seems to me that if they really want to get away with bringing down another plane, they'd use those least likely to be suspected.

 

[Syphon]

Don't like it? Don't fly.

Simple.

I heard that argument growing up.

"Don't like segregated restaurants, do not eat out"

Wrong is wrong no matter how you spin it.

Yup.

flying is not a right, its a privilege.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I heard that argument growing up.

"Don't like segregated restaurants, do not eat out"

Wrong is wrong no matter how you spin it.

Yup.

flying is not a right, its a privilege.

Nonsense.

 

[Syphon]

Yup.

flying is not a right, its a privilege.

Nonsense.

so can you point to where in any government document it saying that flying is a right?

 

[rightwinger]

Looks like they got themselves another evil Al Qaeder. WTG Big Brother!


TSA Nabs Suspected Al Queda Terrorist At O'Hare International Airport, A toddler in a wheelchair - YouTube


What a country we've become. Fun times huh?

The parents of that three year old wouldn't accept $10,000 to smuggle a package through a check point?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

flying is not a right, its a privilege.

Nonsense.

so can you point to where in any government document it saying that flying is a right?

Our rights don't come from governments, for starters. Can you point out where the government is given the right to infringe on anybody's right to travel in the Constitution?

The Right To Travel

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

While it states that it's not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, one might look for the freedom of movement, or right to travel, in the 9th Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

However, what it really comes down to is the right to do business, in my opinion. You have the right to purchase a seat on an airplane from an airline without the government molesting you in the process, and I use the term "molest" not necessarily in its sexual connotation.

 

[Syphon]

Who they search isn't nearly as important as who they don't search. A muslim wearin a parka in August and carrying a backpack is automatically exempt.

by what law?

 

[Syphon]

Nonsense.

so can you point to where in any government document it saying that flying is a right?

Our rights don't come from governments, for starters. Can you point out where the government is given the right to infringe on anybody's right to travel in the Constitution?

The Right To Travel

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

While it states that it's not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, one might look for the freedom of movement, or right to travel, in the 9th Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

However, what it really comes down to is the right to do business, in my opinion. You have the right to purchase a seat on an airplane from an airline without the government molesting you in the process, and I use the term "molest" not necessarily in its sexual connotation.

now youre taking the negative argument of well it doesnt say that they "can" so that means that they cant.

there are no rights to travel by airplane. but since air travel is considered interstate commerce, the government can regulate it. this is one of the ways in which they regulate air travel. you have the freedom to choose an alternate form of travel, no one ever said the only way to get to your destination was to fly.

again, can you point to where in the constitution or any governing document it say you have a right to travel by airplane?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

so can you point to where in any government document it saying that flying is a right?

Our rights don't come from governments, for starters. Can you point out where the government is given the right to infringe on anybody's right to travel in the Constitution?



Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

While it states that it's not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, one might look for the freedom of movement, or right to travel, in the 9th Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

However, what it really comes down to is the right to do business, in my opinion. You have the right to purchase a seat on an airplane from an airline without the government molesting you in the process, and I use the term "molest" not necessarily in its sexual connotation.

now youre taking the negative argument of well it doesnt say that they "can" so that means that they cant.

there are no rights to travel by airplane. but since air travel is considered interstate commerce, the government can regulate it. this is one of the ways in which they regulate air travel. you have the freedom to choose an alternate form of travel, no one ever said the only way to get to your destination was to fly.

again, can you point to where in the constitution or any governing document it say you have a right to travel by airplane?

Yes, I'm taking the "negative argument," because that's how the Constitution is meant to be interpreted as per the 10th Amendment.

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.

Regardless, did the Supreme Court specify that the government may decide to limit your choices in regards to the freedom of movement? No. They simply said that the government may not infringe on it. Forcing you to find an alternate form of transportation would be a form of infringement.

Also the interstate commerce clause was put into the Constitution as a response to the Articles of Confederation allowing the individual states to practice protectionism against one another. In other words it was intended to simply create a system of free trade among the states, and not to allow the federal government to restrict trade or travel. Of course it's now used to justify the federal government doing whatever it wants.

 

[Syphon]

Our rights don't come from governments, for starters. Can you point out where the government is given the right to infringe on anybody's right to travel in the Constitution?



Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

While it states that it's not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, one might look for the freedom of movement, or right to travel, in the 9th Amendment.



However, what it really comes down to is the right to do business, in my opinion. You have the right to purchase a seat on an airplane from an airline without the government molesting you in the process, and I use the term "molest" not necessarily in its sexual connotation.

now youre taking the negative argument of well it doesnt say that they "can" so that means that they cant.

there are no rights to travel by airplane. but since air travel is considered interstate commerce, the government can regulate it. this is one of the ways in which they regulate air travel. you have the freedom to choose an alternate form of travel, no one ever said the only way to get to your destination was to fly.

again, can you point to where in the constitution or any governing document it say you have a right to travel by airplane?

Yes, I'm taking the "negative argument," because that's how the Constitution is meant to be interpreted as per the 10th Amendment.

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.

Regardless, did the Supreme Court specify that the government may decide to limit your choices in regards to the freedom of movement? No. They simply said that the government may not infringe on it. Forcing you to find an alternate form of transportation would be a form of infringement.

Also the interstate commerce clause was put into the Constitution as a response to the Articles of Confederation allowing the individual states to practice protectionism against one another. In other words it was intended to simply create a system of free trade among the states, and not to allow the federal government to restrict trade or travel. Of course it's now used to justify the federal government doing whatever it wants.

actually that is not how the 10th amendment is meant to be interpreted. by your logic, you just contradicted your own argument.

this link came from your own post:
Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

using your interpretation of the 10th amendment, those things are thus reserved for the states and the federal government does not have the power to do any of that.

again, the government is not infringing on your right to travel. you can drive, take the train, take a boat. but again, under the commerce clause, the fed has the right regulate interstate commerce, thus since planes fly between state, they have the right to regulate. this has been decided and upheld many times by the same supreme court that you like to throw out there to prove your argument. well if you gonna use them as evidence in part of your argument, you better be willing to accept their ruling in another.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

now youre taking the negative argument of well it doesnt say that they "can" so that means that they cant.

there are no rights to travel by airplane. but since air travel is considered interstate commerce, the government can regulate it. this is one of the ways in which they regulate air travel. you have the freedom to choose an alternate form of travel, no one ever said the only way to get to your destination was to fly.

again, can you point to where in the constitution or any governing document it say you have a right to travel by airplane?

Yes, I'm taking the "negative argument," because that's how the Constitution is meant to be interpreted as per the 10th Amendment.

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.

Regardless, did the Supreme Court specify that the government may decide to limit your choices in regards to the freedom of movement? No. They simply said that the government may not infringe on it. Forcing you to find an alternate form of transportation would be a form of infringement.

Also the interstate commerce clause was put into the Constitution as a response to the Articles of Confederation allowing the individual states to practice protectionism against one another. In other words it was intended to simply create a system of free trade among the states, and not to allow the federal government to restrict trade or travel. Of course it's now used to justify the federal government doing whatever it wants.

actually that is not how the 10th amendment is meant to be interpreted. by your logic, you just contradicted your own argument.

this link came from your own post:
Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

using your interpretation of the 10th amendment, those things are thus reserved for the states and the federal government does not have the power to do any of that.

again, the government is not infringing on your right to travel. you can drive, take the train, take a boat. but again, under the commerce clause, the fed has the right regulate interstate commerce, thus since planes fly between state, they have the right to regulate. this has been decided and upheld many times by the same supreme court that you like to throw out there to prove your argument. well if you gonna use them as evidence in part of your argument, you better be willing to accept their ruling in another.

I fail to see how the 10th Amendment contradicts my argument. I'm going to need you to go into more detail on that one.

Like I said, the right to travel is infringed upon if you restrict choices. And why would I have to accept the Court's ruling in another argument because I happen to agree with them in one argument? Just because they're right some of the time doesn't mean that they're right all of the time. Also you completely ignored the fact that the interstate commerce clause was only intended to create free trade among the states and nothing more.

Though, as I said before, the right to travel isn't even the issue here. The issue is the right to do business. The airlines own their airplanes and have every right to sell a seat to anybody that they choose to do business with. It is, unsurprisingly, a property right issue. Nowhere is the federal government given the authority in the Constitution to restrict or to insert itself into this process.

 

[Paulie]

...then they came for 3 year olds in wheelchairs, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

[Gadawg73]

I heard that argument growing up.

"Don't like segregated restaurants, do not eat out"

Wrong is wrong no matter how you spin it.

Yup.

flying is not a right, its a privilege.

That isn't the point.
The point is which way of searching passengers on the best economies of scale DETERS CRIME AND TERRORISM.
And the current way ain't it.
Profiling is the only way to pick out the terrorists to be thoroughly screened.
Resources are wasted in the name of political correctness.
Current system is a JOKE. That 3 year old was randomly picked out based on nothing other than he was the 10th or 30th person in line.
Absurd.

 

[paulitician]

...then they came for 3 year olds in wheelchairs, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Yeah, this stuff is very sad.

 

[rightwinger]

...then they came for 3 year olds in wheelchairs, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Yeah, this stuff is very sad.

You have obviously never sat in front of a three year old on a long airline flight.....they are little terrorists

 

[Sallow]

Don't like it? Don't fly.

Simple.

"You Americans are so foolish, you search for weapons at your airports, we search for TERRORISTS." Isreali security.

The current PC doctrine of no profiling is a joke.

Israel practices apartheid. Don't think you'd like that here..if it was used against people of the Jewish faith..

 

[Sallow]

...then they came for 3 year olds in wheelchairs, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Yeah, this stuff is very sad.

No..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhhu5OjMf8]Live TV Footage/Coverage of 9/11 (Second Plane hit, Collapse of Towers) World Trade Center - YouTube[/ame]

That was sad.

 

[paulitician]

...then they came for 3 year olds in wheelchairs, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Yeah, this stuff is very sad.

You have obviously never sat in front of a three year old on a long airline flight.....they are little terrorists

Sorry, but it's hard to laugh at this stuff.

 

[Gadawg73]

Don't like it? Don't fly.

Simple.

"You Americans are so foolish, you search for weapons at your airports, we search for TERRORISTS." Isreali security.

The current PC doctrine of no profiling is a joke.

Israel practices apartheid. Don't think you'd like that here..if it was used against people of the Jewish faith..

No they don't. Try again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Don't like it? Don't fly.

Simple.

Better yet, don't like it, fire Congress.