This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please
enable JavaScript
in your browser.
Live
PTR
Beta
Classic
TSA Security Theatre
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Perkocet
ITT: Discolando is a huge conspiracy theorist.
Post by
Discolando
ITT: Discolando is a huge conspiracy theorist.
No, I'm not, actually. I'm just a big fan of the Constitution.
Post by
Squishalot
Again, nice try. The point of this thread is the TSA and their violation of the 4th Amendment. I've spoken my peace and you've spoken yours... why are you now insisting on changing the subject? I firmly believe you're wrong and you firmly believe I'm wrong. It's probably going to be a moot point because if Congressman Paul's legislature passes next week the TSA will no longer be able to invasively search people and I'll be happy.
Because I'm not changing the subject. The issue is whether it is ok for people to consent to their rights being waived (eg, right to privacy). My argument is that people are already consenting to their rights being waived (eg, right to bear arms), therefore, the constitutional/legal issue of someone waiving their rights is contextual, and not unequivocally bad (misspelt it before).
What's your argument other than 'I believe X'?
Post by
Discolando
Again, nice try. The point of this thread is the TSA and their violation of the 4th Amendment. I've spoken my peace and you've spoken yours... why are you now insisting on changing the subject? I firmly believe you're wrong and you firmly believe I'm wrong. It's probably going to be a moot point because if Congressman Paul's legislature passes next week the TSA will no longer be able to invasively search people and I'll be happy.
Because I'm not changing the subject. The issue is whether it is ok for people to consent to their rights being waived (eg, right to privacy). My argument is that people are already consenting to their rights being waived (eg, right to bear arms), therefore, the constitutional/legal issue of someone waiving their rights is contextual, and not unequivocally bad (misspelt it before).
What's your argument other than 'I believe X'?
You
are
changing the subject. I've already specifically defined my point in this thread to be the 4th Amendment and the TSA. Since that topic is apparently now over, I'm bowing out of the thread. Have a nice evening.
Post by
Squishalot
You are changing the subject. I've already specifically defined my point in this thread to be the 4th Amendment and the TSA. Since that topic is apparently now over, I'm bowing out of the thread. Have a nice evening.
What are you afraid of? All you need to do is state that you have a problem with your right to bear arms being taken away and that you think that it's unconstitutional.
It doesn't matter if it's part of the contract you agree to or not, any contract that explicitly is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal cannot be enforced.
This is what you said before. Your right to bear arms and to your privacy are both equally protected in your constitution. By dragging the question of constitutionality into the argument, you implicitly allow me to draw on whether breaches of rights are constitutional or not.
So far, your argument amounts to "I don't think this is right, and I'm not going to logically conclude why". Meh.
Post by
421339
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
528361
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I like to bring up something that vgk said and Squishalot didn't respond to (as I'm seeing that he's vigorously replying to every point made in this thread and disproving it.
It would be as if you wanted to drive but to get your license the DMV does pat downs also and your against it. However if you want your license you must go to through the DMV. Thus if you want your license you need to go through a pat down.
This is a very good analogy, which I think proves the point about consenting to being searched when you get your ticket.
You don't have a 'right' to air travel. The government 'permits' air travel. Therefore, if you want to use it, you follow their rules. I don't see how the government forcing you not to bear arms before flying is any different from forcing you to go through
your choice
of pat down or x-ray.
That was my response earlier.
The prime difference in the analogy is that the TSA is attempting to prevent an immediate threat. If the DMV felt that a bomb check was required before entering their premises for some reason, then they're entitled to do so.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You don't have a 'right' to air travel. The government 'permits' air travel.
Says who?
I have the right to move from point A to point B, so long as I infringe on no one's rights doing so.
TSA is a a breach into what should be a private transaction.
Post by
Squishalot
You don't have a 'right' to air travel. The government 'permits' air travel.
Says who?
I have the right to move from point A to point B, so long as I infringe on no one's rights doing so.
TSA is a a breach into what should be a private transaction.
It would be, if the airlines weren't licensed by the government to operate air travel. No one is infringing on your right to walk from point A to point B.
Anyway, my point still stands - if one's right to privacy being breached is unconstitutional, then so is the breach of one's right to bear arms. But few people have ever had issues with that before.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It would be, if the airlines weren't licensed by the government to operate air travel.
That's begging the question.
It's the government's very role that is being questioned.
Anyway, my point still stands - if one's right to privacy being breached is unconstitutional, then so is the breach of one's right to bear arms. But few people have ever had issues with that before.
Right, the government doesn't have that right. Airlines do, though.
Post by
Squishalot
That's begging the question.
It's the government's very role that is being questioned.
The government's role in being able to regulate air travel isn't being questioned. I don't think anyone questions whether the government should be allowed to suspend all air travel, for example.
The government's regulation of people who wish to travel is what is under questioning. Related, but different.
Right, the government doesn't have that right. Airlines do, though.
What makes it rightful for the airlines to but not the government?
Anyway, I'm horribly busy with work these next few days (and probably the next couple of weeks), so I won't have time to really reply much, so apologies in advance if I don't respond.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The government's role in being able to regulate air travel isn't being questioned. I don't think anyone questions whether the government should be allowed to suspend all air travel, for example.
The government's regulation of people who wish to travel is what is under questioning. Related, but different.
I think I know my position a little better than you. You stated that "You don't have a 'right' to air travel. The government 'permits' air travel." I'm questioning that.
What makes it rightful for the airlines to but not the government?
Because it's their airplanes?
It's not a difficult concept. I own my house, therefore I have the right to choose what is brought into it. They own their airplanes, so they have the right to choose what is brought onto them.
Post by
Squishalot
I think I know my position a little better than you. You stated that "You don't have a 'right' to air travel. The government 'permits' air travel." I'm questioning that.
I thought you were still referring to the original discussion point. In that case, yes, it's begging the question, but you haven't presented an argument as to why they shouldn't be regulating US airspace. There are a number of defense reasons as to why they should.
Because it's their airplanes?
It's not a difficult concept. I own my house, therefore I have the right to choose what is brought into it. They own their airplanes, so they have the right to choose what is brought onto them.
It's your car, but you're still not allowed to drive it while under the influence.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It's your car, but you're still not allowed to drive it while under the influence.
The government owns the roads. They get to decide what goes on them.
I thought you were still referring to the original discussion point. In that case, yes, it's begging the question, but you haven't presented an argument as to why they shouldn't be regulating US airspace. There are a number of defense reasons as to why they should.
Because that was not something granted to the federal government in the Constitution.
Post by
Squishalot
The government owns the roads. They get to decide what goes on them.
Does the government not own the airspace?
Because that was not something granted to the federal government in the Constitution.
Not explicitly, but an argument can be made that they can use other powers for the same purpose. For example, defense.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The government owns the roads. They get to decide what goes on them.
Does the government not own the airspace?
No...
Roads are built. Air isn't.
Not explicitly, but an argument can be made that they can use other powers for the same purpose. For example, defense.
Uh...no?
If anything, it's the complete opposite.
Post by
Squishalot
No...
Roads are built. Air isn't.
If you build a road on government property, it doesn't make it yours. Governments can build roads because they own the property. Again, who owns the airspace?
Uh...no?
If anything, it's the complete opposite.
Not as far as I understand law. You (i.e. government) want to do X. There are several parts of the Constitution that allow you to do Y, which allows you to do X (for example, regulating hiring requirements for the defense force, which is not explicitly defined as a power in the Constitution, but falls under the jurisdiction of the defense power). There is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly prevents you from doing X. Therefore, you can do X.
So again - there is nothing in the Constitution (that I am aware of) preventing the US Government from regulating US airspace any less than it can regulate US roads. Happy to take evidence against that.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If you build a road on government property, it doesn't make it yours. Governments can build roads because they own the property. Again, who owns the airspace?
Let's start from the beginning.
First of all, you're arguing for
federal
government control of airways based on
state
government control of roads. That doesn't logically or legally follow.
Now,
here
is the relevant Supreme Court ruling. Some of the more important lines follow:
They grant any citizen of the United States 'a public right of freedom of transit in air commerce4 through the navigable air space of the United States.' 49 U.S.C. 403, 49 U.S.C.A. 403.
And it is provided that 'such navigable airspace shall be subject to a public right of freedom of interstate and foreign air navigation.'
The airspace, apart from the immediate reaches above the land, is part of the public domain.
Not as far as I understand law. You (i.e. government) want to do X. There are several parts of the Constitution that allow you to do Y, which allows you to do X (for example, regulating hiring requirements for the defense force, which is not explicitly defined as a power in the Constitution, but falls under the jurisdiction of the defense power). There is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly prevents you from doing X. Therefore, you can do X.
That doesn't really even makes sense. Either it's covered by the Constitution or it isn't (in which case it goes to the state).
So again - there is nothing in the Constitution (that I am aware of) preventing the US Government from regulating US airspace any less than it can regulate US roads.
The US government doesn't regulate the roads. The states do. There are only a handful of roads that the federal government has jurisdiction over (postal roads and roads in national parks being the main ones).
Everything
not given to the federal government is automatically given to the states.
Post by
Squishalot
I didn't realise that State Government owns roads, so fair enough.
However, note - you have freedom of transit on the roads as well as on the air. So anything that is legitimately regulated on the roads, could similarly be regulated in respect of air travel. That ruling does nothing to say that air travel cannot be regulated, only that there is a public right of freedom of air navigation.
That doesn't really even makes sense. Either it's covered by the Constitution or it isn't (in which case it goes to the state).
Have you ever studied the principles of constitutional law?
The Constitution is not a document that covers every case in explicit detail. For example, suppose that it grants the Federal government the power to maintain a defence force. Suppose industrial relations law is not included in the Constitution, and is therefore managed by the State government. Who has the power to regulate industrial relations with respect to the Defence Force?
This is what I mean by 'using other powers'. Even if they don't have explicit powers to control roads, for example, if the US Government can demonstrate a need for the purposes of national security and defence, it can do so, providing it's not overturned as unconstitutional (i.e. not for defence purposes) by the Supreme Court (or the High Court in Australia's case).
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
© 2021 Fanbyte
