5 ms·

There needs to be an appeals process. You cannot strip someone of their fundamental right to movement for the rest of their life with no recourse because they h

There needs to be an appeals process. You cannot strip someone of their fundamental right to movement for the rest of their life with no recourse because they had a bad day one time.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Or maybe they didn't, what are reprecussions to the company for lying? 'Oops, was a mistake'.
Rebelgecko 5y ago
I think it's more or less established that flying on a plane isn't a right in the US. That's part of why the 4th amendment challenges to the TSA haven't been effective.
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  Pilots have recourses, passengers as cargo do not.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- salawat 5y ago
  See, I'm surprised that readings of the 10th Amendment aren't the end all be all answer to that statement. >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.
  - notriddle 5y ago
    In what way does airline travel not count as interstate commerce?
    - kube-system 5y ago
      Only if you’re Southwest Airlines and the year is before 1979 ;)
    - salawat 5y ago
      Oh, if you want to play that equivocation, then the no-fly list is a ban from interstate commerce? That sounds a lot like starting to abridge freedom of assembly (over there, across state lines within a predefined time period). And lets be honest, the interstate commerce definition has been hogwash since case law got on the books stating that intra-state sale of grain could be regulated by Congress because of some indirect potential to affect markets across state lines; and such jurisprudence being utilized as a desperate lynchpin to try to keep individual states from unmaking the Federal level gun control framework. I can play word games and run rings around the English language too, however, my goal is not to stretch what's on paper to create pretense for interfering in every U.S. citizen's life in ways that make it easier for more and more liberties to be stripped, and for the actual force of law to get increasingly hidden from the plain English meaning of an a reasonably literate individual. Tired of the lazyness in applying 2nd plus order thinking to the spaghetti that is our legal code.
otterley 5y ago
There is no fundamental right to movement by airplane.
- ramesh31 5y ago
  >There is no fundamental right to movement by airplane. This is kind of the same question as the free speech issue on social media platforms. Where do we draw the line at what remains a public utility? There is already an extensive framework of laws in place regarding peoples rights to use a motor vehicle for transportation, including the right to file a legal appeal to one's license revocation. Flying in a plane should come with the same rights and responsibilities.
  - otterley 5y ago
    There's no right to use a motor vehicle for transit either. Driving, like flying, is a privilege and not a right. The ability to file an appeal if you lose your license is also a privilege; it is a creature of the laws that created driver's licenses in the first place. A legal designation of a common carrier is a significant burden upon the freedoms of those supplying a transportation or information service - it is not a step that is taken lightly by Congress. And even that designation isn't all-or-nothing; common carriers can still refuse to provide services. For example, even the U.S. Mail can refuse to transport hazardous materials.
Taniwha 5y ago
They are asking for people CONVICTED of causing trouble on planes to be put on this list .... of course they are free to appeal their conviction

There needs to be an appeals process. You cannot strip someone of their fundamental right to movement for the rest of their life with no recourse because they had a bad day one time.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

Or maybe they didn't, what are reprecussions to the company for lying? 'Oops, was a mistake'.

Rebelgecko 5y ago

I think it's more or less established that flying on a plane isn't a right in the US. That's part of why the 4th amendment challenges to the TSA haven't been effective.

hindsightbias 5y ago
Pilots have recourses, passengers as cargo do not.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
salawat 5y ago
See, I'm surprised that readings of the 10th Amendment aren't the end all be all answer to that statement. >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.
- notriddle 5y ago
  In what way does airline travel not count as interstate commerce?
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Only if you’re Southwest Airlines and the year is before 1979 ;)
  - salawat 5y ago
    Oh, if you want to play that equivocation, then the no-fly list is a ban from interstate commerce? That sounds a lot like starting to abridge freedom of assembly (over there, across state lines within a predefined time period). And lets be honest, the interstate commerce definition has been hogwash since case law got on the books stating that intra-state sale of grain could be regulated by Congress because of some indirect potential to affect markets across state lines; and such jurisprudence being utilized as a desperate lynchpin to try to keep individual states from unmaking the Federal level gun control framework. I can play word games and run rings around the English language too, however, my goal is not to stretch what's on paper to create pretense for interfering in every U.S. citizen's life in ways that make it easier for more and more liberties to be stripped, and for the actual force of law to get increasingly hidden from the plain English meaning of an a reasonably literate individual. Tired of the lazyness in applying 2nd plus order thinking to the spaghetti that is our legal code.

otterley 5y ago

There is no fundamental right to movement by airplane.

ramesh31 5y ago
>There is no fundamental right to movement by airplane. This is kind of the same question as the free speech issue on social media platforms. Where do we draw the line at what remains a public utility? There is already an extensive framework of laws in place regarding peoples rights to use a motor vehicle for transportation, including the right to file a legal appeal to one's license revocation. Flying in a plane should come with the same rights and responsibilities.
- otterley 5y ago
  There's no right to use a motor vehicle for transit either. Driving, like flying, is a privilege and not a right. The ability to file an appeal if you lose your license is also a privilege; it is a creature of the laws that created driver's licenses in the first place. A legal designation of a common carrier is a significant burden upon the freedoms of those supplying a transportation or information service - it is not a step that is taken lightly by Congress. And even that designation isn't all-or-nothing; common carriers can still refuse to provide services. For example, even the U.S. Mail can refuse to transport hazardous materials.

Taniwha 5y ago

They are asking for people CONVICTED of causing trouble on planes to be put on this list .... of course they are free to appeal their conviction