6 ms·

Air travel is not a right guaranteed by the constitution. TSA gets a lot of leeway because of this.

aesh2Xa1 8y ago
What's the argument here? Spaghetti and meatballs aren't explicitly guaranteed, either, but you can eat them without signing away any other rights.
- beambot 8y ago
  s/spaghetti & meatballs/illicit drugs/ and that argument falls apart. You will quickly lose other rights, even though drugs aren't explicitly guaranteed or prohibited by the constitution either. (Not addressing GPs argument, just that the spaghetti & meatballs one doesn't hold water.)
  - samstave 8y ago
    Bone Saws aren't banned either, and retinal eye-scans of assassins will not make the world a safer place. Having Humanist-Centric politics makes the world a better place. Humans with shitty governments, parenting and environments which are shitty typically wind up being shitty humans. Building walls, guns, bombs, cages, cops, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes are no substitute for actually working to be better humans
    - afjl 8y ago
      I agree but you can't realistically build policy around "working to be better humans". Walls, guns, surveillance, etc are all easily deployable policies with easily measurable results. I don't enjoy the surveillance state or waiting 2 hours for airport security but it is tolerable...to an extent.
- labster 8y ago
  Tell that to the residents of Old Smoky, who lost their poor meatballs to government regulation.
joshuamcginnis 8y ago
It is unfortunate we surrender our freedom of movement and 4th amendment rights for the illusion of security.
- johndubchak 8y ago
  That's the central argument right there. We just need people to refuse to use air travel based on this if it comes to pass - I know I will.
walterbell 8y ago
What would happen if businesspeople refused to travel if their constitutional rights were not respected, and the economy ground to a halt? A small precedent was the widely flaunted "ban" on small electronic devices during takeoff/landing. A revolt among business travelers caused a rapid change in the rule.
- URSpider94 8y ago
  I’m betting we will never find out. The number of people who have been driven out of air travel because of today’s draconian restrictions is basically zero. People are conditioned to comply with any request in order to board an airplane. EDIT: you edited your post after I posted. As long as you don’t make people uncomfortable on the plane, that is. Don’t take away their phones, laptops or headphones, and you can grab as many images as you want of their irises, retinas and fingerprints.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  The percentage of people caring about privacy is too low for TSA to worry about it, though.
- azinman2 8y ago
  Did business travelers stop traveling? And the economy suffered?
- adventured 8y ago
  > What would happen if businesspeople refused to travel if their constitutional rights were not respected, and the economy ground to a halt? When have business people as a very large collective ever been particularly outraged about the surveillance state? Nothing about the NSA's activities have been fundamentally rolled back. They won, across the board and across party lines. I'm not talking about seven executives from some corner of tech lodging a twitter protest, I mean the millions of people that make up the "businesspeople" category. They have never widely protested the surveillence moves of the last 17 years. Americans will resist this as much as 24/7 cctv surveillence has been resisted in other developed nations such as Britain. Not at all. Most people do not view it as a threat to their liberty, they view it as an isolated intrusion that is to their security benefit.
baddox 8y ago
Note that regulating air travel is also not listed in the Constitution as an authority of the federal government.
- cr1895 8y ago
  Interstate commerce is though, right?
  - nybble41 8y ago
    Only because at the time that clause was written no one expected the relatively benign power to "make interstate commerce regular", i.e. to facilitate trade between the states, to be used as cover for absolutely any kind of interference in state affairs Washington can dream up—including actions which actively inhibit trade, or have precious little to do with interstate commerce in the first place—in preference to actually useful things like standardizing weights and measures and curbing fraud.
aosmith 8y ago
I'm pretty sure freedom of travel is covered by liberty.
clubm8 8y ago
> Air travel is not a right guaranteed by the constitution. TSA gets a lot of leeway because of this. Travel in general is protected, and in addition the 9th Amendment clearly states: >The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- pishpash 8y ago
  Travel on public roadways perhaps but airports and airliners are all private property.
  - gasull 8y ago
    You can't violate the Constitution on private property.
    - tallanvor 8y ago
      Private companies acting in a private capacity cannot violate the constitution. The limits of the Constitution apply to government employees (or even private employees performing a service contracted by a government agency) whether they are on public or private property.
      - eesmith 8y ago
        The major exception being slavery, that is, a private company with slave labor, "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted", violates the 13th amendment, with penalties set by Congressional legislation. There also have been cases where the courts have treated private companies as state actors. See https://www.nyclu.org/en/publications/column-applying-constitution-private-actors-new-york-law-journal https://www.nyclu.org/en/publications/column-applying-consti...
        nybble41 8y ago
        That is not an exception. The 13th Amendment prohibits the government from legally classifying a person as someone else's property (with the one noted exception). A private citizen treating a person as a slave may be guilty of kidnapping, assault, battery, or any number of other crimes, but they are not violating the 13th Amendment—only the government can do that, by granting legal recognition to the victim's status as a slave. If a private company is acting in ways normally prohibited to private actors, on the state's authority, then they are effectively acting as an extension of the state. The state obviously cannot grant a private company the authority to do something which both private actors and the state itself are prohibited from doing. However, it's still the government, not the private company, which is bound by the Constitution.
kakarot 8y ago
If air travel is the only feasible way to leave the country, then yes, it is guaranteed by the Constitution.
ip26 8y ago
Nobody is required to give you free air travel, no. But the government is not supposed to be allowed to obstruct you from traveling, whether you want to go by air, boat, road..
- daenz 8y ago
  Suppose the TSA becomes a private entity of airlines?
  - jdbernard 8y ago
    Then some other airline create a huge competitive advantage by not using it.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
Travel is essential, just as the right to work, breathe when you want etc etc. So, my bet is that it is. Granted with some restrictions to make sure everyone is as safe as possible...without getting a cavity search

What's the argument here? Spaghetti and meatballs aren't explicitly guaranteed, either, but you can eat them without signing away any other rights.

beambot 8y ago
s/spaghetti & meatballs/illicit drugs/ and that argument falls apart. You will quickly lose other rights, even though drugs aren't explicitly guaranteed or prohibited by the constitution either. (Not addressing GPs argument, just that the spaghetti & meatballs one doesn't hold water.)
- samstave 8y ago
  Bone Saws aren't banned either, and retinal eye-scans of assassins will not make the world a safer place. Having Humanist-Centric politics makes the world a better place. Humans with shitty governments, parenting and environments which are shitty typically wind up being shitty humans. Building walls, guns, bombs, cages, cops, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes are no substitute for actually working to be better humans
  - afjl 8y ago
    I agree but you can't realistically build policy around "working to be better humans". Walls, guns, surveillance, etc are all easily deployable policies with easily measurable results. I don't enjoy the surveillance state or waiting 2 hours for airport security but it is tolerable...to an extent.
labster 8y ago
Tell that to the residents of Old Smoky, who lost their poor meatballs to government regulation.

joshuamcginnis 8y ago

It is unfortunate we surrender our freedom of movement and 4th amendment rights for the illusion of security.

johndubchak 8y ago
That's the central argument right there. We just need people to refuse to use air travel based on this if it comes to pass - I know I will.

walterbell 8y ago

What would happen if businesspeople refused to travel if their constitutional rights were not respected, and the economy ground to a halt? A small precedent was the widely flaunted "ban" on small electronic devices during takeoff/landing. A revolt among business travelers caused a rapid change in the rule.

URSpider94 8y ago
I’m betting we will never find out. The number of people who have been driven out of air travel because of today’s draconian restrictions is basically zero. People are conditioned to comply with any request in order to board an airplane. EDIT: you edited your post after I posted. As long as you don’t make people uncomfortable on the plane, that is. Don’t take away their phones, laptops or headphones, and you can grab as many images as you want of their irises, retinas and fingerprints.
ekianjo 8y ago
The percentage of people caring about privacy is too low for TSA to worry about it, though.
azinman2 8y ago
Did business travelers stop traveling? And the economy suffered?
adventured 8y ago
> What would happen if businesspeople refused to travel if their constitutional rights were not respected, and the economy ground to a halt? When have business people as a very large collective ever been particularly outraged about the surveillance state? Nothing about the NSA's activities have been fundamentally rolled back. They won, across the board and across party lines. I'm not talking about seven executives from some corner of tech lodging a twitter protest, I mean the millions of people that make up the "businesspeople" category. They have never widely protested the surveillence moves of the last 17 years. Americans will resist this as much as 24/7 cctv surveillence has been resisted in other developed nations such as Britain. Not at all. Most people do not view it as a threat to their liberty, they view it as an isolated intrusion that is to their security benefit.

baddox 8y ago

Note that regulating air travel is also not listed in the Constitution as an authority of the federal government.

cr1895 8y ago
Interstate commerce is though, right?
- nybble41 8y ago
  Only because at the time that clause was written no one expected the relatively benign power to "make interstate commerce regular", i.e. to facilitate trade between the states, to be used as cover for absolutely any kind of interference in state affairs Washington can dream up—including actions which actively inhibit trade, or have precious little to do with interstate commerce in the first place—in preference to actually useful things like standardizing weights and measures and curbing fraud.

aosmith 8y ago

I'm pretty sure freedom of travel is covered by liberty.

clubm8 8y ago

> Air travel is not a right guaranteed by the constitution. TSA gets a lot of leeway because of this. Travel in general is protected, and in addition the 9th Amendment clearly states: >The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

pishpash 8y ago
Travel on public roadways perhaps but airports and airliners are all private property.
- gasull 8y ago
  You can't violate the Constitution on private property.
  - tallanvor 8y ago
    Private companies acting in a private capacity cannot violate the constitution. The limits of the Constitution apply to government employees (or even private employees performing a service contracted by a government agency) whether they are on public or private property.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      The major exception being slavery, that is, a private company with slave labor, "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted", violates the 13th amendment, with penalties set by Congressional legislation. There also have been cases where the courts have treated private companies as state actors. See https://www.nyclu.org/en/publications/column-applying-constitution-private-actors-new-york-law-journal https://www.nyclu.org/en/publications/column-applying-consti...
      - nybble41 8y ago
        That is not an exception. The 13th Amendment prohibits the government from legally classifying a person as someone else's property (with the one noted exception). A private citizen treating a person as a slave may be guilty of kidnapping, assault, battery, or any number of other crimes, but they are not violating the 13th Amendment—only the government can do that, by granting legal recognition to the victim's status as a slave. If a private company is acting in ways normally prohibited to private actors, on the state's authority, then they are effectively acting as an extension of the state. The state obviously cannot grant a private company the authority to do something which both private actors and the state itself are prohibited from doing. However, it's still the government, not the private company, which is bound by the Constitution.

kakarot 8y ago

If air travel is the only feasible way to leave the country, then yes, it is guaranteed by the Constitution.

ip26 8y ago

Nobody is required to give you free air travel, no. But the government is not supposed to be allowed to obstruct you from traveling, whether you want to go by air, boat, road..

daenz 8y ago
Suppose the TSA becomes a private entity of airlines?
- jdbernard 8y ago
  Then some other airline create a huge competitive advantage by not using it.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

Travel is essential, just as the right to work, breathe when you want etc etc. So, my bet is that it is. Granted with some restrictions to make sure everyone is as safe as possible...without getting a cavity search