6 ms·

Not at all. How does this statement have any basis? Where in the Bill of Rights are you guaranteed the right to air travel? You don't have to fly. In fact, you

Not at all. How does this statement have any basis? Where in the Bill of Rights are you guaranteed the right to air travel? You don't have to fly. In fact, you can drive between any two places in the US and never be searched or questioned or anything. This argument is a distraction from the root problem that government is involved in something they shouldn't - citizens traveling freely in their own country. Only when government gets involved in something do rights and other issues like this start getting murky. If a private company ran airport security and SFO demanded you do a body scan, you would go to OAK or SJC. No chance of doing that when government's involved. Even if state government was in charge, you could decide to fly out of JFK or Newark based on preferences. The TSA at its core is a blatant violation of the 10th amendment. In case you aren't familiar (most people aren't and for some reason most people don't care): 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. Arguments like this are a distraction from the core point that the federal government should never have been involved in this at all.

gonzo 16y ago
> In fact, you can drive between any two places in the US and never be searched or questioned or anything. Really? I live in Hawaii. Its 2200 miles to the next state. Across water.
stratomorph 16y ago
>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.
jeebusroxors 16y ago
In fact, you can drive between any two places in the US and never be searched or questioned or anything. Unless you run into a DUI checkpoint...
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- waterlesscloud 16y ago
  Or drive into California, with it's agricultural inspection stations on each highway. I've often wondered what they would do if they saw clear evidence of criminal activity in a vehicle at one of those checkpoints.
- tshtf 16y ago
  Or the multiple border patrol checkpoints that are within 50 miles from Canada or Mexico...
mseebach 16y ago
First, good luck driving to Hawaii or Alaska. Second, while air travel isn't mentioned, the constitution, as I understand it, applies to everything the federal government might do, and since TSA is a federal agency, what it can and can't do is very much governed by the constitution. Random searches of people driving cars are unconstitutional, even if the constitution doesn't grant you the right to drive. After all, you could walk to (almost) anywhere in the US, right? If Wal-Mart decided to put up these scanners, it could very well be illegal, but it would never be unconstitutional.
mthoms 16y ago
In fact, you can drive between any two places in the US and never be searched or questioned or anything. Unless you are within 100 miles of the coast or border. http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty...
- moxiemk1 16y ago
  Which unfortunately includes my hometown in Vermont (as well as anywhere remotely close to it). I've been stopped at border-patrol checkpoints 100 miles by driving (so shorter as the crow flies) from the border before. It's certainly "unreasonable" in the 4th amendment context.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  I think the first sentence is important enough to pull out on its own: Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.
gphil 16y ago
I would disagree that the TSA is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment as you assert, because of the power to regulate interstate commerce (which certainly includes at least air travel crossing state and US borders) is an explicitly enumerated power of the federal government in the Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause.
duffbeer703 16y ago
Where in the US Constitution is the Federal government empowered to regulate the personal travel of Americans within the country? Where in the US Constitution is the Federal government empowered to compel you to be subjected to dangerous radiation in order to board a common carrier? And why is this outrage limited to aircraft? I can step in a boat and travel down the local river past all sorts of critical facilities without screening. Every drug dealer in my town gets product from a wholesaler in NYC whose couriers use inter-city busses. You can drive around with legal explosive materials with the exception of some tunnels and bridges.
jemfinch 16y ago
> You don't have to fly. In fact, you can drive between any two places in the US and never be searched or questioned or anything. The interesting thing is that air travel is far more of a natural right than travel by road. At least the government built the roads you travel on.

gonzo 16y ago

> In fact, you can drive between any two places in the US and never be searched or questioned or anything. Really? I live in Hawaii. Its 2200 miles to the next state. Across water.

stratomorph 16y ago

>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.

jeebusroxors 16y ago

In fact, you can drive between any two places in the US and never be searched or questioned or anything. Unless you run into a DUI checkpoint...

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
waterlesscloud 16y ago
Or drive into California, with it's agricultural inspection stations on each highway. I've often wondered what they would do if they saw clear evidence of criminal activity in a vehicle at one of those checkpoints.
tshtf 16y ago
Or the multiple border patrol checkpoints that are within 50 miles from Canada or Mexico...

mseebach 16y ago

First, good luck driving to Hawaii or Alaska. Second, while air travel isn't mentioned, the constitution, as I understand it, applies to everything the federal government might do, and since TSA is a federal agency, what it can and can't do is very much governed by the constitution. Random searches of people driving cars are unconstitutional, even if the constitution doesn't grant you the right to drive. After all, you could walk to (almost) anywhere in the US, right? If Wal-Mart decided to put up these scanners, it could very well be illegal, but it would never be unconstitutional.

mthoms 16y ago

In fact, you can drive between any two places in the US and never be searched or questioned or anything. Unless you are within 100 miles of the coast or border. http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty...

moxiemk1 16y ago
Which unfortunately includes my hometown in Vermont (as well as anywhere remotely close to it). I've been stopped at border-patrol checkpoints 100 miles by driving (so shorter as the crow flies) from the border before. It's certainly "unreasonable" in the 4th amendment context.
steveklabnik 16y ago
I think the first sentence is important enough to pull out on its own: Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

gphil 16y ago

I would disagree that the TSA is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment as you assert, because of the power to regulate interstate commerce (which certainly includes at least air travel crossing state and US borders) is an explicitly enumerated power of the federal government in the Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause.

duffbeer703 16y ago

Where in the US Constitution is the Federal government empowered to regulate the personal travel of Americans within the country? Where in the US Constitution is the Federal government empowered to compel you to be subjected to dangerous radiation in order to board a common carrier? And why is this outrage limited to aircraft? I can step in a boat and travel down the local river past all sorts of critical facilities without screening. Every drug dealer in my town gets product from a wholesaler in NYC whose couriers use inter-city busses. You can drive around with legal explosive materials with the exception of some tunnels and bridges.

jemfinch 16y ago

> You don't have to fly. In fact, you can drive between any two places in the US and never be searched or questioned or anything. The interesting thing is that air travel is far more of a natural right than travel by road. At least the government built the roads you travel on.