- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 19,035
- Reaction score
- 8
No it's not.
Yeah it really is....... It's such a minor thing.
Man won't submit to security, TSA won't let him fly. Who's right?
- Thread starter Foxrac
- Start date
Yeah it really is....... It's such a minor thing.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 69,284
- Reaction score
- 143
At least you get it.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 19,035
- Reaction score
- 8
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 69,284
- Reaction score
- 143
Toll Gates --> Advanced Imaging Technology coming soon....
Or pat-down points along the way. Of course it is no biggie to some folk, lol.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 19,035
- Reaction score
- 8
Toll Gates --> Advanced Imaging Technology coming soon....
I like it!
yizuman
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2008
- Messages
- 2,344
- Reaction score
- 2
So, what effect will this have on those that are frequent fliers? I mean those that fly ALOT.
Yiz
Your right to travel and your right to due process as Americans moving within your own country is being violated. Your right to be free of sexual assault as a condition of travel is being violated. While the TSA has not foiled a single terrorist attempt, not even one, we have stood by and let them chip away at our rights and we are ALL responsible because we've all been complacent.
Regarding your right to travel:
U.S. CONST. Art. 4, § 2, cl. 1 (The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States)
U.S. CONST. Amend. 1, § 1 (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.)
If your government is restricting your right to travel, they are restricting your ability to assemble.
U.S. CONST. Amend. 14, § 1 (All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws).
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958).
Sanez v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 500-03 (1999). <--huge right to travel case!
("The right to travel embraces three different components: the right to enter and leave another State; the right to be treated as a welcome visitor while temporarily present in another State; and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State.") and furthermore: (That right is protected by the new arrival’s status as both a state citizen and a United States citizen, and it is plainly identified in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause)
(if the law plainly states that NEW citizens have this right, clearly all citizens do.)
United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 758 (1966) (The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.”).
Att’y General of New York v. Sato-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 906 (1986)
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969).
^Reaffirmed that: ("For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States.") and also further reaffirmed:
(If a law has "no other purpose . . . than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it is patently unconstitutional." United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570, 581 (1968).)
Id. at 909-10. (stating that “‘if there are other, reasonable ways to achieve [a compelling state purpose] with a lesser burden on constitutionally protected activity, a State may not choose the way of greater interference. If it acts at all, it must choose ‘less drastic means.’”(quoting Dunn v. Blumestien, 405 U.S. 330, 343 (1972); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 (1960)) (citing Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa Hospital, 415 U.S. 250, 263 (1974)).
United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 912-13 (9th Cir. 1973) ( That screening is more extensive nor intensive than necessary, ... to detect the presence of weapons or explosives, that it is confined in good faith to that purpose, and that potential passengers may avoid the search).
Evansville-Wanderburgh Airport Auth. Dist. v. Delta Airlines, 405 U.S. 707, 711-715 (1972). Id. at 714-16
Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 230 (1981); United States Railroad Retirement
Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174-175 (1980); Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93 (1979);
New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976).
Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222 (1983)
Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965);
Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 514 (1964) ("The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country,... may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.) Id., at 125-126.
You have these rights. They were already established by people who fought hard to protect your rights as Americans. USE THEM or you'll continue to lose them.
The security theater that is the TSA is not about protecting you: it's about making people feel "safe" while justifying their wasteful and needless jobs.
Every time I fly on a PRIVATE plane I am not subject to the TSA at all: if the TSA were about actually reducing the risk of terrorist acts, wouldn't they also screen private flights with the same vigor?
They don't, because that's not what the TSA is about. The TSA doesn't care about two people on a private jet and what they do with it: they care about putting on a show for you. Stop buying tickets.
If your rights have been violated by the TSA, SUE. If your rights are ever threatened by the TSA, VIDEO TAPE IT. If the TSA attempts invasive screening, insist it's DONE IN PLAIN SIGHT with WITNESSES. And you want to know the very best form of protest?
Stop flying commercial, start flying private, and write to the TSA and your airlines and tell them why they lost a paying customer. Tell them that you know you have rights!
If you can't fly without the false sense of security and the theater show that the TSA provides, DON'T FLY AT ALL. If you can't fly without agreeing to the violation of the rights of your fellow Americans, DON'T FLY AT ALL. If you're deluded and believe that you need more security for the safest form of transportation, DON'T FLY AT ALL. Don't use your fear and your media-brainwashing as an excuse to take away the rights of fellow law-abiding citizens. The rest of us can sit back and enjoy the flight while you cower at home, thanks.
Regarding your right to travel:
U.S. CONST. Art. 4, § 2, cl. 1 (The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States)
U.S. CONST. Amend. 1, § 1 (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.)
If your government is restricting your right to travel, they are restricting your ability to assemble.
U.S. CONST. Amend. 14, § 1 (All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws).
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958).
Sanez v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 500-03 (1999). <--huge right to travel case!
("The right to travel embraces three different components: the right to enter and leave another State; the right to be treated as a welcome visitor while temporarily present in another State; and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State.") and furthermore: (That right is protected by the new arrival’s status as both a state citizen and a United States citizen, and it is plainly identified in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause)
(if the law plainly states that NEW citizens have this right, clearly all citizens do.)
United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 758 (1966) (The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.”).
Att’y General of New York v. Sato-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 906 (1986)
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969).
^Reaffirmed that: ("For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States.") and also further reaffirmed:
(If a law has "no other purpose . . . than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it is patently unconstitutional." United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570, 581 (1968).)
Id. at 909-10. (stating that “‘if there are other, reasonable ways to achieve [a compelling state purpose] with a lesser burden on constitutionally protected activity, a State may not choose the way of greater interference. If it acts at all, it must choose ‘less drastic means.’”(quoting Dunn v. Blumestien, 405 U.S. 330, 343 (1972); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 (1960)) (citing Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa Hospital, 415 U.S. 250, 263 (1974)).
United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 912-13 (9th Cir. 1973) ( That screening is more extensive nor intensive than necessary, ... to detect the presence of weapons or explosives, that it is confined in good faith to that purpose, and that potential passengers may avoid the search).
Evansville-Wanderburgh Airport Auth. Dist. v. Delta Airlines, 405 U.S. 707, 711-715 (1972). Id. at 714-16
Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 230 (1981); United States Railroad Retirement
Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174-175 (1980); Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93 (1979);
New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976).
Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222 (1983)
Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965);
Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 514 (1964) ("The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country,... may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.) Id., at 125-126.
You have these rights. They were already established by people who fought hard to protect your rights as Americans. USE THEM or you'll continue to lose them.
The security theater that is the TSA is not about protecting you: it's about making people feel "safe" while justifying their wasteful and needless jobs.
Every time I fly on a PRIVATE plane I am not subject to the TSA at all: if the TSA were about actually reducing the risk of terrorist acts, wouldn't they also screen private flights with the same vigor?
They don't, because that's not what the TSA is about. The TSA doesn't care about two people on a private jet and what they do with it: they care about putting on a show for you. Stop buying tickets.
If your rights have been violated by the TSA, SUE. If your rights are ever threatened by the TSA, VIDEO TAPE IT. If the TSA attempts invasive screening, insist it's DONE IN PLAIN SIGHT with WITNESSES. And you want to know the very best form of protest?
Stop flying commercial, start flying private, and write to the TSA and your airlines and tell them why they lost a paying customer. Tell them that you know you have rights!
If you can't fly without the false sense of security and the theater show that the TSA provides, DON'T FLY AT ALL. If you can't fly without agreeing to the violation of the rights of your fellow Americans, DON'T FLY AT ALL. If you're deluded and believe that you need more security for the safest form of transportation, DON'T FLY AT ALL. Don't use your fear and your media-brainwashing as an excuse to take away the rights of fellow law-abiding citizens. The rest of us can sit back and enjoy the flight while you cower at home, thanks.
Glenn
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 2,908
- Reaction score
- 0
It is not child pornography! Where is the sexual aspect? There is none. Use your head.
You get it, too, Aleser.
Some people think that singing jingoistic songs and waving the flag makes one a patriot. It ain't so.
Ain't that the truth!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 19,035
- Reaction score
- 8
I fly "alot"..... I have been scanned 1 time.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 19,035
- Reaction score
- 8
Right to travel.....yes. Right to travel on a commercial airline from a goverment regulated port without following the regulations no.
FYI....You also do not have the right to travel US roads without a license. Nor do you have the right to travel the roads in a vehicle deemed unfit for travel or unregistered.
There is no right to fly. You can fly but if you CHOOSE to do so you also CHOOSE to comply with the regulations that come with it. Simple really.
Steinhauer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 12,108
- Reaction score
- 136
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 69,284
- Reaction score
- 143
no idea. But let me put this way -
If the person is a frequent flier... chance is he is a business traveler.. which means he spent a lot of time talking on cellphone.. which means he'll need to go thru imaging scanner 1,000x for same effect as cellphone transmission.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 69,284
- Reaction score
- 143
fascinated about Nazis much?
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 19,035
- Reaction score
- 8
:Ohno: We should so sue the government.....We have a right to talk on our cell phones without health risk.
While we are at it let's sue for not allowing us to free travel through school zones while using our cell phones. And then we can sue for not allowing free travel across the states while the cruise control is set at 95, the seat belt is off and we are on our 12th beer in an RV we built out of wood.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 69,284
- Reaction score
- 143
:Ohno: We should so the government.....We have a right to talk on our cell phones without health risk.
While we are at it let's sue for not allowing us to free travel through school zones while using our cell phones. And then we can sue for not allowing free travel across the states while the cruise control is set at 95, the seat belt is off and we are on our 12th beer in an RV we built out of wood.
it's not about health risk. it's about rights. I don't need to quote Ben Franklin again. It's why I live here... not Israel or England. Sad that we are treated like potential criminals in our own country.