6 ms·

> 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 A

by 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.
        eesmith 8y ago
        Your interpretation seems to differ from that of legal sources. Quoting from the first paragraph of the ACLU link I gave: "With the notable exception of the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery, the individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution protect against actions by government officials but not against actions by private persons or entities." Quoting from https://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/NorthAmerica/USCERD2000/cerd-us05b.htm https://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/North... : "the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude encompasses both governmental and private action. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883). The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congress may regulate private conduct under sec. 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, which provides that "Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968). Such power includes determining what constitutes the "badges and incidents of slavery and the authority to translate that determination into effective legislation." Quoting from https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/private-discrimination https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs... : "The Thirteenth Amendment is one of the few constitutional provisions that directly implicates private conduct. That amendment, the first of the three "civil war amendments," flatly bans slavery and involuntary servitude. It acts directly upon private entities; slaves were owned by private businesses and individuals. The Thirteenth Amendment, however, has not been interpreted to provide a significant source of constitutional proscription against acts of private discrimination." Quoting from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/PROJECTS/FTRIALS/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/PROJECTS/FTRIALS/conlaw/thirtee... "The Thirteenth Amendment, unlike most provisions in the Constitution, is self-executing, in that it directly reaches-even without action by Congress- conduct by private individuals (slave holders)."
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - stochastic_monk 8y ago
      This is true. And this is why the TSA is ostensibly restricted by the bill that of rights.
- Joeri 8y ago
  Cars and garages are private property as well. Just try flying an airplane without obtaining government approval and see what happens. The airways are definitely regulated public space.
- spangry 8y ago
  Even in the case of private property, if the public is generally invited in, some constitutional rights can still apply: ...ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties. Incidentally, this judgment could be relevant to questions around freedom of speech on monopoly online platforms (e.g. google search, youtube, twitter & facebook): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
  - nybble41 8y ago
    That was a horrible ruling. Upholding private property rights does not restrict anyone's "fundamental rights and liberties". The two are not in conflict: no one has any legitimate rights or liberties with respect to anyone else's private property to begin with, no matter how much the property owners may have opened up their property to the public. The Constitution guarantees freedom from government interference in the exercise of one's rights; it does not guarantee the availability of other's property for that purpose without their consent. However, the issue in this case is not restrictions imposed by property owners on the use of their own property, but rather restrictions imposed by the federal government, which is bound by the limitations on government power written into the Constitution.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      Consider the Nordic "right to roam". Just because you own land doesn't mean you have the right to keep people off the land simply because you don't want them there. Or as the WP page quotes for this court case: 'ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion."' If it were otherwise, then what's to keep from having a company city, or company state? Sell off Seattle to Bill Gates, and make it his fiefdom.
- eesmith 8y ago
  "airports .. are all private property" SFO is owned by the City and County of San Francisco. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_International_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_International_Ai... LAX is owned by the City of Los Angeles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_International_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_International_Airp... ORD is owned by the City of Chicago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Hare_International_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Hare_International_Airport
- anonuser123456 8y ago
  Private companies (e.g. the airlines) are not making the requirements; the government regulators are.

by clubm8 8y ago

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.
      - eesmith 8y ago
        Your interpretation seems to differ from that of legal sources. Quoting from the first paragraph of the ACLU link I gave: "With the notable exception of the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery, the individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution protect against actions by government officials but not against actions by private persons or entities." Quoting from https://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/NorthAmerica/USCERD2000/cerd-us05b.htm https://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/North... : "the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude encompasses both governmental and private action. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883). The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congress may regulate private conduct under sec. 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, which provides that "Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968). Such power includes determining what constitutes the "badges and incidents of slavery and the authority to translate that determination into effective legislation." Quoting from https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/private-discrimination https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs... : "The Thirteenth Amendment is one of the few constitutional provisions that directly implicates private conduct. That amendment, the first of the three "civil war amendments," flatly bans slavery and involuntary servitude. It acts directly upon private entities; slaves were owned by private businesses and individuals. The Thirteenth Amendment, however, has not been interpreted to provide a significant source of constitutional proscription against acts of private discrimination." Quoting from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/PROJECTS/FTRIALS/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/PROJECTS/FTRIALS/conlaw/thirtee... "The Thirteenth Amendment, unlike most provisions in the Constitution, is self-executing, in that it directly reaches-even without action by Congress- conduct by private individuals (slave holders)."
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - stochastic_monk 8y ago
    This is true. And this is why the TSA is ostensibly restricted by the bill that of rights.
Joeri 8y ago
Cars and garages are private property as well. Just try flying an airplane without obtaining government approval and see what happens. The airways are definitely regulated public space.
spangry 8y ago
Even in the case of private property, if the public is generally invited in, some constitutional rights can still apply: ...ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties. Incidentally, this judgment could be relevant to questions around freedom of speech on monopoly online platforms (e.g. google search, youtube, twitter & facebook): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
- nybble41 8y ago
  That was a horrible ruling. Upholding private property rights does not restrict anyone's "fundamental rights and liberties". The two are not in conflict: no one has any legitimate rights or liberties with respect to anyone else's private property to begin with, no matter how much the property owners may have opened up their property to the public. The Constitution guarantees freedom from government interference in the exercise of one's rights; it does not guarantee the availability of other's property for that purpose without their consent. However, the issue in this case is not restrictions imposed by property owners on the use of their own property, but rather restrictions imposed by the federal government, which is bound by the limitations on government power written into the Constitution.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    Consider the Nordic "right to roam". Just because you own land doesn't mean you have the right to keep people off the land simply because you don't want them there. Or as the WP page quotes for this court case: 'ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion."' If it were otherwise, then what's to keep from having a company city, or company state? Sell off Seattle to Bill Gates, and make it his fiefdom.
eesmith 8y ago
"airports .. are all private property" SFO is owned by the City and County of San Francisco. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_International_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_International_Ai... LAX is owned by the City of Los Angeles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_International_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_International_Airp... ORD is owned by the City of Chicago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Hare_International_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Hare_International_Airport
anonuser123456 8y ago
Private companies (e.g. the airlines) are not making the requirements; the government regulators are.