4 ms·

What makes you think the no-fly list is unconstitutional? The Supreme Court doesn't take cases because a law is unfair, they take cases that violate the Constit

What makes you think the no-fly list is unconstitutional? The Supreme Court doesn't take cases because a law is unfair, they take cases that violate the Constitution or written law. The Court has routinely deemed "national security" concerns as a valid reason for laws to exist, so long as those concerns aren't just makeup for a more discriminatory reasoning.

lacker 6y ago
Some of the processes around the no-fly list have been declared unconstitutional before. For example: https://aclu-or.org/en/cases/court-rules-no-fly-list-process-unconstitutional-and-must-be-reformed-0 https://aclu-or.org/en/cases/court-rules-no-fly-list-process... IANAL but it would not surprise me if the courts further restricted the ability of law enforcement to arbitrarily modify the no-fly list in the future.
- penultimatename 6y ago
  The processes around reporting were deemed unconstitutional, not actually putting someone on a list. The government slightly improved the process and would actually tell people if they were on the list, which was enough to satisfy the courts. After that the ACLU lost their follow-up suits and appeals.
  - NotSammyHagar 6y ago
    I feel like the general concept should be disallowed. They aren't blocking people (based on the public cases) who are imminently expected to kill someone or blow up a plane by sneaking something on it. There are a million people on the list, there are not a million attempts to blow up planes, even in 10 years there are probably only a few. Why not disallow questionable people from using the internet, cell phones, driving cars, walking in public? You can destroy someone's opportunity to be part of the world, work in most companies, etc see their family or children with these choices. Therefore, I think because these are not criminal claims and are not substantiated as imminent threats they are against their liberty.

lacker 6y ago

Some of the processes around the no-fly list have been declared unconstitutional before. For example: https://aclu-or.org/en/cases/court-rules-no-fly-list-process-unconstitutional-and-must-be-reformed-0 https://aclu-or.org/en/cases/court-rules-no-fly-list-process... IANAL but it would not surprise me if the courts further restricted the ability of law enforcement to arbitrarily modify the no-fly list in the future.

penultimatename 6y ago
The processes around reporting were deemed unconstitutional, not actually putting someone on a list. The government slightly improved the process and would actually tell people if they were on the list, which was enough to satisfy the courts. After that the ACLU lost their follow-up suits and appeals.
- NotSammyHagar 6y ago
  I feel like the general concept should be disallowed. They aren't blocking people (based on the public cases) who are imminently expected to kill someone or blow up a plane by sneaking something on it. There are a million people on the list, there are not a million attempts to blow up planes, even in 10 years there are probably only a few. Why not disallow questionable people from using the internet, cell phones, driving cars, walking in public? You can destroy someone's opportunity to be part of the world, work in most companies, etc see their family or children with these choices. Therefore, I think because these are not criminal claims and are not substantiated as imminent threats they are against their liberty.