4 ms·

Trusted Traveller programs are a privilege and not a constitutionally protected entitlement. They can be revoked at any time for any reason and you don't get yo

Trusted Traveller programs are a privilege and not a constitutionally protected entitlement. They can be revoked at any time for any reason and you don't get your money back. What law are you talking about? Show us where in the Constitution it says you're entitled to cut in line at the airport. We're now in the Find Out phase of "Let's fuck around with DHS and see if they take us off their club's VIP list".

amanaplanacanal 9mo ago
"Congress shall make no law". If there is a law, it's unconstitutional. If there is no law, then how is the executive doing it? By what constitutional authority?
datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
Personally, I don’t think that anyone should be speaking authoritatively on this subject because it seems to me to be untested constitutional law, unless a constitutional scholar would like to chime in. In which case, it’s up to the Supreme Court to either explicitly (through judgment) or implicitly (through denying a hearing of the case) decide.
- junofan 9mo ago
  Ok, I am a Constitutional Scholar and there is no way that not getting to jump the line at the airport is a “material adverse action” because you can simply get in line. In general, there need to be damages when you talk about liability.
  - datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
    Welcome to the thread! I trust your expertise, but am a little put off by your flippant tone: > getting to jump the line at the airport is a “material adverse action” This is rhetorical device of framing. I could just as easily say: > Pretending to open an online cupcake shop and pretending to be forced to serve gay people isn’t a “material adverse action” And it would sound equally ridiculous, yet the highest court in the land ruled in that individual’s favor.
    - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
      > This is rhetorical device of framing Is MAC a thing outside mergers?
    - tokyobreakfast 9mo ago
      > am a little put off by your flippant tone I love this. You: 1. Declare everyone stop talking until an actual expert can speak and educate us all 2. An Actual Expert™ enters the chat and offers his expert opinion. 3. You decide his opinion is bullshit after all, because it disagrees with what you had in mind, and accuse him of being flippant.
      - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
        Ha. I love this comment.
      - datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
        I mean usually an Actual Expert pretends to inform and educate the people he’s interacting with. I didn’t really think he came across as informative or educational.
overfeed 9mo ago
This is textbook retaliation. Your statement is akin to a manager firing their underling after their romantic advances are rejected, and quoting at-will employment laws. Sure, you can be fired for "any" reason - except retaliation - that is illegal.
NotSammyHagar 9mo ago
It's bad for all of us if there are privilege government entitlements. I disagree with the word privilege because anyone who hasn't been arrested seems to be able to get these things. I don't have one and haven't applied either, I should be able to get it I guess, at least before the fascists came to power.

amanaplanacanal 9mo ago

"Congress shall make no law". If there is a law, it's unconstitutional. If there is no law, then how is the executive doing it? By what constitutional authority?

datsci_est_2015 9mo ago

Personally, I don’t think that anyone should be speaking authoritatively on this subject because it seems to me to be untested constitutional law, unless a constitutional scholar would like to chime in. In which case, it’s up to the Supreme Court to either explicitly (through judgment) or implicitly (through denying a hearing of the case) decide.

junofan 9mo ago
Ok, I am a Constitutional Scholar and there is no way that not getting to jump the line at the airport is a “material adverse action” because you can simply get in line. In general, there need to be damages when you talk about liability.
- datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
  Welcome to the thread! I trust your expertise, but am a little put off by your flippant tone: > getting to jump the line at the airport is a “material adverse action” This is rhetorical device of framing. I could just as easily say: > Pretending to open an online cupcake shop and pretending to be forced to serve gay people isn’t a “material adverse action” And it would sound equally ridiculous, yet the highest court in the land ruled in that individual’s favor.
  - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
    > This is rhetorical device of framing Is MAC a thing outside mergers?
  - tokyobreakfast 9mo ago
    > am a little put off by your flippant tone I love this. You: 1. Declare everyone stop talking until an actual expert can speak and educate us all 2. An Actual Expert™ enters the chat and offers his expert opinion. 3. You decide his opinion is bullshit after all, because it disagrees with what you had in mind, and accuse him of being flippant.
    - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
      Ha. I love this comment.
    - datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
      I mean usually an Actual Expert pretends to inform and educate the people he’s interacting with. I didn’t really think he came across as informative or educational.

overfeed 9mo ago

This is textbook retaliation. Your statement is akin to a manager firing their underling after their romantic advances are rejected, and quoting at-will employment laws. Sure, you can be fired for "any" reason - except retaliation - that is illegal.

NotSammyHagar 9mo ago

It's bad for all of us if there are privilege government entitlements. I disagree with the word privilege because anyone who hasn't been arrested seems to be able to get these things. I don't have one and haven't applied either, I should be able to get it I guess, at least before the fascists came to power.