The Glade 4.0

That would almost be worth doing, if I wouldn't get fined or arrested for it.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Tell them it's your constitutional right.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I could probably plead the 7th.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4567&start=75
Be my guest. Just because I don't find a cite for you doesn't make the statement factually untrue.



*yawn* you accept restrictions when you fly. You also have to obey flight attendents, not smoke, not carry a gun, not distract the pilot by staging a protest, etc. you can't do all sorts of constitutional protected activities. You also can't stop traffic with a prayer or paint over signs with your free speech. Reasonable restrictions are a fact of life.

Except your statement is factually untrue. Some nebulous "advocacy group" does not equate to a PAC.


You may yawn all you like regarding your Liberties, I don't take them so lightly. Restrictions on actions when flying /= no flying for you if you don't want to have your genitals fondled, or your naked picture taken.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

TheRiov:

There is a vast chasm of agency between the "airline" and the "TSA".

_________________

Really now?





If I live to be 100, I will never figure out why either of these are so damn difficult to understand.

As a matter of fact, I do have a right to not to be harassed by the federal government, whether I'm flying or not. Any powers not granted specifically in the Constitution (ex. flying) are the domain of the States' and their citizens. Don't give me that "there's no right to fly" crap.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Flying is regulated under the interstate commerce clause

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Breathing is soon to be regulated under the interstate commerce clause.

_________________

EPA already called that dominion over that one.

and yet the SCOTUS and every other court in the land disagrees with you. You're not a lawyer, you're not a professor of constitutional law. You're an angry man with a soap box. Good luck with that. The courts have found you're wrong. get over it.

I believe the EPA has already weighed in on that and says when we breathe, we're all polluters due to their regulation of that health hazard - carbon dioxide.

edit: You beat me Ladas...

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

What is it with the libs and their need to demonize people by calling them "angry"?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I guess he should have pursued that degree in psychic law like you did. Because neither the SCOTUS nor the lower courts have ever ruled on the legality of TSA's body scans or pat downs themselves. Valiant effort, though. Do you read palms as well?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Well, if every Court in the Land disagrees with us about the 4th Amendment and the TSA searches, could you kindly provide us with the necessary case references to verify this information?

_________________

I am psychic and I see the answer as being "no" just a lot more wordy.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Yup, and searches are part of the purchase contract. Note how the libertarian argument keeps going back to "my constitutional rights", and ignores the whole contract issue?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Taskiss:

Actually, they aren't part of the purchase contract, since the searches are terms imposed by a third party.

_________________

http://books.google.com/books?id=X210Vh ... rt&f=false

US v. Lopez
US v. Bell
US v. Edwards
US v. Davis

are all cited as relevant. There are several others, and I'll happily post when I have more time.

Edit: remove vitriol

Well, I believe part of the issue is that it's not the airlines performing the searches, it's a governmental agency.

That said, I at least believe that it is not unreasonable to search someone who is boarding the plane. So basically the 4th amendment isn't relevant for me.

http://www.frontierairlines.com/frontie ... -travel.do

It's part of the terms and conditions for check in

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

TBH, I don't mind a certain level of scrutiny. I don't fly very often, and when I did last, I found the level of "security" ridiculous. Waiting in a line for at least an hour so everyone in line could take their shoes, belts, hats, watches, rings, etc off. Turn on their laptops, cellphones, and other electronic devices, get waved with a wand... now they're patting down 4 year old kids?

Come the **** on here. Its gone FAR past ridiculous and into sublime territory now. I can't carry on a *sealed* bottle of water past the security checkpoint? My tube of toothpaste is too large? Jesus christ people, I'm getting on a plane for a domestic flight for two hours. Seriously, how goddamn likely am I, a 35 year old white, male, professional to blow up a Southwest 737 flying from Vegas to Houston with a 5oz tube of **** toothpaste and a 1 liter bottle of smart water?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

U.S. v Lopez ruled that the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 was unconstitutional and rejected the Commerce Clause argument presented by the Justice Department. It issued three standards about where the Commerce Clause applies: channels, instruments and people, and affective activities.

U.S. v Bell upheld the rule that felons cannot legally possess firearms. I'm not really sure how this is applicable, because Bell's challenge was a misapplication of Lopez in the first place.

U.S. v Edwards simply provides the 24 hour rule for premises searches without a warrant after a lawful arrest, and it comes packaged with a rather scathing dissent that sees more reference and use.

U.S. v Willie Gene Davis has to do with a legal search of a vehicle pursuant to a traffic violation.

So, please, tell me how all of these are applicable to the situation at hand, which fundamentally involves a third party interjecting itself into a contract with no material benefit to the system. Indeed, since the TSA security protocols demonstrably harm the Air Transport and Air Traffic situation in the United States ...

_________________

Just as likely as anyone else since whack jobs come in all shapes, sizes, genders, professions and ages, 1 in 10 million or whatever many passengers? But honestly the inconvience of having to get a $1 3oz tube of tooth paste and spending an extra 50 cents for water past the check point is well worth the lessened risk of getting blown up by that 1 in 10 million ******* that wants to do it imo. And ultimately the full body scanners with eliminate the need for stuff like removing your shoes and will significantly speed up going thru security.