This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
TSA Security Theatre
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
However, note - you have freedom of transit on the roads as well as on the air.
Up until the advent of the automobile, there were absolutely no regulations on travelling on any public road, and any local regulations that were instated were shot down by the courts as
per
the freedom of movement principle. Since then, however, that right has been ignored, and now it's pretty much taken for granted.
So, technically you're right, in theory they are equally free. What the practice has devolved to though is a different story.
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).
So, it's either constitutional or it's not. My statement still stands, and you've done nothing but confirm it.
I say regulation of airspace is unconstitutional.
Secondly, defense involves international use of our airspace. You don't defend America from it's own citizens. Intrastate travel of American citizens has nothing to do with national defense.
Post by
Squishalot
So, technically you're right, in theory they are equally free. What the practice has devolved to though is a different story.
And this is my main point. There is nothing 'unequivocably bad' about what's happening with the TSA at the moment. It's merely a subjective point on a spectrum of acceptability that has been crossed. There is no 'unconstitutional' argument against it, any moreso than there is an 'unconstitutional' argument against being breathalysed at a random drink driving test station.
So, it's either constitutional or it's not. My statement still stands, and you've done nothing but confirm it.
I say regulation of airspace is unconstitutional.
As above - constitutional or unconstitutional, it's all built on the same underlying principles (just based on federal laws rather than state laws). There's plenty more to challenge if you're going to argue on principle.
Secondly, defense involves international use of our airspace. You don't defend America from it's own citizens. Intrastate travel of American citizens has nothing to do with national defense.
I don't see why you don't have to defend America from its own citizens. I'd hate to think that US defense forces would need to cease firing if an American citizen pulled up an assault rifle and charged at them, just because they're American. The government is required to defend the nation from all threats to the nation, not just ones sourced outside its borders.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And this is my main point. There is nothing 'unequivocably bad' about what's happening with the TSA at the moment. It's merely a subjective point on a spectrum of acceptability that has been crossed. There is no 'unconstitutional' argument against it, any moreso than there is an 'unconstitutional' argument against being breathalysed at a random drink driving test station.
But it
is
unconstitutional. That's the whole point I'm making. Yes it's 'unequivocally bad'. The government has gone well beyond its limits.
As above - constitutional or unconstitutional, it's all built on the same underlying principles (just based on federal laws rather than state laws). There's plenty more to challenge if you're going to argue on principle.
No, because the states have the authority to make those laws. The federal government doesn't have the authority from anywhere.
I don't see why you don't have to defend America from its own citizens. I'd hate to think that US defense forces would need to cease firing if an American citizen pulled up an assault rifle and charged at them, just because they're American. The government is required to defend the nation from all threats to the nation, not just ones sourced outside its borders.
Not the
federal
government.
Have you ever heard of police?
Post by
Squishalot
But it is unconstitutional. That's the whole point I'm making. Yes it's 'unequivocally bad'. The government has gone well beyond its limits.
No, because the states have the authority to make those laws. The federal government doesn't have the authority from anywhere.
No, *you think* it's unconstitutional, and *you think* they don't have the authority to. Unless you're a constitutional law practioner, it's just your thoughts versus my thoughts. As I keep pointing out over and over again, the restriction on bearing arms while travelling on planes has been around for a long while now. If the regulation of air travel is unconstitutional, you would think that it would have been successfully challenged in the Supreme Court by now, and the policies suspended / terminated.
Not the federal government.
Have you ever heard of police?
So are you suggesting that members of the national armed forces have no legal recourse to stop an American with an assault rifle, and have to stand back and wait for the police? *I think* that conclusion is flawed. But unless you have a Supreme Court case succesfully challenging or supporting it, what we think is irrelevant.
(Btw, you're staying up quite late tonight...)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No, *you think* it's unconstitutional, and *you think* they don't have the authority to. Unless you're a constitutional law practioner, it's just your thoughts versus my thoughts
The constitution wasn't written and approved by "constitutional law practicioners," so I guess they shouldn't have had any say in it either...
That's just silly. The constitution does not give the federal government control of the airways, just like it doesn't give them control of the roads. What the constitution does grant is the right of interstate travel.
If the regulation of air travel is unconstitutional, you would think that it would have been successfully challenged in the Supreme Court by now, and the policies suspended / terminated.
If you even take a cursory glance at American history, you'd see that half of their decisions have been unconstitutional. It's an unfortunate flaw in the system, which really can only be fixed by multiple amendments or a total rewrite of the Constitution.
So are you suggesting that members of the national armed forces have no legal recourse to stop an American with an assault rifle, and have to stand back and wait for the police?
Qua
soldiers they have absolutely no authority domestically.
Qua
citizens they have the right to defend and protect their own.
But unless you have a Supreme Court case succesfully challenging or supporting it, what we think is irrelevant.
What's with your worshiping of the Supreme Court? What they say is law =/= what they say is right.
Post by
MrSCH
Qua
soldiers they have absolutely no authority domestically.
Qua
citizens they have the right to defend and protect their own.
But if the citizens have a right, so do the soldiers. Are they not citizens too? Whether they have authority in a military capacity or not is another thing, but they should. As squish says, an army should defend it's country from all threats, domestic and foreign. And just look throughout history and you'll see examples of the people being a threat to the government. (Whether right or wrong :P) French Revolution, Spartacus, Caesar in Rome was seen as a threat and later saw Pompey as a threat etc. At least, I think I'm right ;)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
As squish says, an army should defend it's country from all threats, domestic and foreign.
Nope. The American system was specifically built around keeping the military away from the people. We have state militias (the National Guard) and civilian police for domestic affairs.
And just look throughout history and you'll see examples of the people being a threat to the government. (Whether right or wrong :P) French Revolution, Spartacus, Caesar in Rome was seen as a threat and later saw Pompey as a threat etc. At least, I think I'm right ;)
Not a single one of those is America, so how does that apply?
But if the citizens have a right, so do the soldiers. Are they not citizens too? Whether they have authority in a military capacity or not is another thing.
What do you mean "is another thing." That's exactly what I said in my post. The military has no jurisdiction in domestic affairs, but individual soldiers,
qua
citizens, retain all their rights.
Post by
MrSCH
And just look throughout history and you'll see examples of the people being a threat to the government. (Whether right or wrong :P) French Revolution, Spartacus, Caesar in Rome was seen as a threat and later saw Pompey as a threat etc. At least, I think I'm right ;)
Not a single one of those is America, so how does that apply?
Take it away from being as specific as location and just look at it as an example of the nation being a threat to itself.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Take it away from being as specific as location and just look at it as an example of the nation being a threat to itself.
We have state militias (the National Guard) and civilian police for domestic affairs.
The US system already accounted for that.
Post by
MrSCH
Take it away from being as specific as location and just look at it as an example of the nation being a threat to itself.
We have state militias (the National Guard) and civilian police for domestic affairs.
The US system already accounted for that.
Ok,fair play. Forgive me, the ignorant Brit ;)
Post by
Squishalot
What's with your worshiping of the Supreme Court? What they say is law =/= what they say is right.
You've spent the last two pages arguing that the TSA measures are unconstitutional, and now you're bringing in what's 'right'? This is what I've been arguing all thread - it doesn't matter if it's not 'right', because the government is merely exercising their power. The Supreme Court's decree on what is law is fundamentally enshrined in the Constitution (in Australia at least, at a glance, it seems to only be implied in the US Constitution). Because you've been so focused on attempting to demonstrate that it's unconstitutional, I'm trying to remind you of who are *the only ones* empowered to determine that.
Unless you think that the Supreme Court's ability to determine something is constitutionally valid law is unconstitutional, of course.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You've spent the last two pages arguing that the TSA measures are unconstitutional, and now you're bringing in what's 'right'?
There's a right interpretation of the Constitution, and a wrong interpretation.
it doesn't matter if it's not 'right', because the government is merely exercising their power.
Using that same argument you can justify everything from the Japanese-American internment of WWII to the Indian Removal Act of 1830 (Trail of Tears).
Just because the government has the ability to do something, doesn't mean they have the right or legitimate authority to.
The Supreme Court's decree on what is law is fundamentally enshrined in the Constitution (in Australia at least, at a glance, it seems to only be implied in the US Constitution)
Judicial review is not in the US Constitution, and I side with Thomas Jefferson on this:
You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is " boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem" and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
Because you've been so focused on attempting to demonstrate that it's unconstitutional, I'm trying to remind you of who are *the only ones* empowered to determine that.
Says who? Them. It's akin to claiming the Bible is the work of God because it says so in the bible. It's a circular argument. It is not the Supreme Court's place to interpret the Constitution just because that's what they interpret the Constitution as saying.
Post by
goreblade
well now, i know now never to travel to the US. something good came out of this thread =)
Post by
Squishalot
There's a right interpretation of the Constitution, and a wrong interpretation.
Says who? Them. It's akin to claiming the Bible is the work of God because it says so in the bible. It's a circular argument. It is not the Supreme Court's place to interpret the Constitution just because that's what they interpret the Constitution as saying.
And your interpretation is better than the Supreme Court's? It's not a circular argument, because it's not the Supreme Court's interpretation that gives them the power to interpret it. It's implied by the fact that they are the ultimate appelate court, higher than the state courts (where a constitutional challenge might be initiated), and that power *is* enshrined by the Constitution.
Using that same argument you can justify everything from the Japanese-American internment of WWII to the Indian Removal Act of 1830 (Trail of Tears).
Just because the government has the ability to do something, doesn't mean they have the right or legitimate authority to.
In context - power = authority to. Again, I've never stated that the TSA policies are 'right'. I've only been arguing that 'they are not unconstitutional'. If you want to bring up an argument like "that's not right / fair / cool", as Ron Paul has, then by all means, go for it, and I won't object. But arguing against it on the grounds that it is unconstitutional is potentially a) hypocritical (e.g. in the Discolando's case, depending on whether he actually does want to bring weapons on a plane or not), or b) legally incorrect, depending on the validity of either your or my arguments.
You think it's unconstitutional, I think it is. We both have potentially correct arguments for it. But at the end of the day, your argument is underpinned by the fact that you question the separation of powers (i.e. the validity of the Supreme Court to judge matters of constitutionality), whereas mine assumes the legitimacy of it. That's a much more fundamental question than whether a federal policy is unconstitutional, and one that's probably outside the scope of this thread.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And your interpretation is better than the Supreme Court's?
Yes, because I'm not adding anything to the Constitution. They are.
It's not a circular argument, because it's not the Supreme Court's interpretation that gives them the power to interpret it.
The power of judicial review was created in a court case: Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court decided that they had the authority to declare things unconstitutional. It's that very interpretation that created that power.
It's implied by the fact that they are the ultimate appelate court, higher than the state courts (where a constitutional challenge might be initiated), and that power *is* enshrined by the Constitution.
No where in the Constitution does it say any court has the power of judicial review.
In context - power = authority to.
Uh, no...
Any action done was done with the power to do so, therefore by your reasoning every man has the authority to do anything and everything he is able / has the power to do.
You can't seriously be arguing pro-government and hold that to be true at the same time.
Again, I've never stated that the TSA policies are 'right'. I've only been arguing that 'they are not unconstitutional'. If you want to bring up an argument like "that's not right / fair / cool", as Ron Paul has, then by all means, go for it, and I won't object.
You're not making any sense. If it's unconstitutional, it necessarily follows that it's legally wrong. And, I can guarantee that Ron Paul thinks that giving the government immunity to grope and scan people is completely unconstitutional.
You think it's unconstitutional, I think it is. We both have potentially correct arguments for it. But at the end of the day, your argument is underpinned by the fact that you question the separation of powers (i.e. the validity of the Supreme Court to judge matters of constitutionality), whereas mine assumes the legitimacy of it. That's a much more fundamental question than whether a federal policy is unconstitutional, and one that's probably outside the scope of this thread.
Actually your argument that it's Constitutional is that the Supreme Court hasn't declared it unconstitutional. The simple fact is that the courts haven't declared it constitutional either. Your entire legitimacy argument is based on the fact that it hasn't reached the Supreme Court yet (which usually takes several years).
Post by
Meggie
Haha what did the democracy of USA do to have to fall back on these desperate measures :)
Post by
Squishalot
The power of judicial review was created in a court case: Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court decided that they had the authority to declare things unconstitutional. It's that very interpretation that created that power.
Judicial review was around long before the US.
No where in the Constitution does it say any court has the power of judicial review.
It states that they are an appellate court to the states, implying that the Supreme Court has all the same powers of any other court.
Uh, no...
Any action done was done with the power to do so, therefore by your reasoning every man has the authority to do anything and everything he is able / has the power to do.
You can't seriously be arguing pro-government and hold that to be true at the same time.
Or you're just misinterpreting what I said. I said that 'they were exercising their power', to which I meant 'they were exercising their authority', irrespective of their physical capability to do so. Hence - context.
You're not making any sense. If it's unconstitutional, it necessarily follows that it's legally wrong.
So when you say "what they say is law =/= what they say is right" in relation to the Supreme Court, you're referring to whether they're legally right?
And, I can guarantee that Ron Paul thinks that giving the government immunity to grope and scan people is completely unconstitutional.
Again, your claim that it's unconstitutional is on the basis that you believe that the government is not permitted to regulate air travel. He doesn't think the regulations are unconstitutional, he just thinks that they've gone morally too far.
If Ron Paul thought it was unconstitutional, he wouldn't be proposing a bill to prevent it, because that too would be unconstitutional, on the grounds that you can't regulate it. He would be challenging it in the Supreme Court.
Actually your argument that it's Constitutional is that the Supreme Court hasn't declared it unconstitutional. The simple fact is that the courts haven't declared it constitutional either. Your entire legitimacy argument is based on the fact that it hasn't reached the Supreme Court yet (which usually takes several years).
Air travel has been regulated for a great many years, and again, this is my point. The current TSA processes are merely an extension of the processes undertaken in the past. Your rights have been infringed upon for many years before. And yes, I do believe that if it was unconstitutional, the pro-firearms lobby groups would have challenged it in the Supreme Court a long time ago. I'd be happy for the TSA to be challenged in that respect (because it means that I wouldn't have to put up with it if I visit the US), but the fact that your right to bear arms is restricted on planes would suggest to me that it wouldn't succeed.
Post by
Orranis
Meh, I don't mind being looked at naked, and it's not like you don't let doctor's touch your testy's to check for cancer. Sure it's awkward, but it's nothing new. I'm sure then when I hit the age for whenever I'm going to let a doctor stick his finger up my ass just like the majority of the first-world population. I really don't see how this is incredibly different, even barring the occasional horn-dog employee who sees a hot girl and says "This'll be great!" The guy should get fired and that'll be the end of it.
The problem is, it doesn't WORK.
One example is the Liquid Explosives scare. If you tell everyone they will not be allowed liquids to carried onto the airplane, obviously any smart Terrorist wouldn't bringer Liquid Explosives.
At no point when explosives are being taken onto any flight is it simply a spur of the moment. I can say with certainty to you any time this has happened the one's who made the attack, planned the attack. I can also assure you that they had taken that exact flight many times before.
Nothing uniform can work, it has to be unpredictable.
Though I believe that when it concerns religious ideals it becomes a bit more touchy.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Judicial review was around long before the US.
Your point? Judicial review was not included in the Constitution, and thus it didn't exist in the US until the Supreme Court declared that they had that power in the aforementioned case.
It states that they are an appellate court to the states, implying that the Supreme Court has all the same powers of any other court.
What?
An appelate court is a court that reviews the decisions of a lower court. That has absolutely nothing to do with Judicial review. The former is "intra-branch," the latter "inter-branch."
they were exercising their power
Power which I'm saying they don't have. So, if that's what you meant, it was meaningless to me.
So when you say "what they say is law =/= what they say is right" in relation to the Supreme Court, you're referring to whether they're legally right?
Yes. Maybe "meta-legally" is a better word. Just because they declare X, Y, and Z to be a law doesn't automatically mean it's the correct decision. The very fact that court decisions can be (and are) reversed supports this.
Again, your claim that it's unconstitutional is on the basis that you believe that the government is not permitted to regulate air travel.
It? The groping and x-raying? I've never really been arguing against that
per se
. I came into this thread to propose the deregulation of airspace completely.
My argument is that regulation of airspace is not permitted because is unconstitutional, that that has been my argument from the beginning.
He doesn't think the regulations are unconstitutional, he just thinks that they've gone morally too far.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1-WG-FkWz4
The "Constitutional right to privacy" he's referring to is the 4th Amendment.
If Ron Paul thought it was unconstitutional, he wouldn't be proposing a bill to prevent it, because that too would be unconstitutional, on the grounds that you can't regulate it. He would be challenging it in the Supreme Court.
That makes no sense. Making a law to prevent government involvement isn't government involvement -- that law is something completely internal to the government itself (making it so no employee of the government gets any immunities to grope, x-ray, etc. people).
Air travel has been regulated for a great many years, and again, this is my point. The current TSA processes are merely an extension of the processes undertaken in the past. Your rights have been infringed upon for many years before. And yes, I do believe that if it was unconstitutional, the pro-firearms lobby groups would have challenged it in the Supreme Court a long time ago. I'd be happy for the TSA to be challenged in that respect (because it means that I wouldn't have to put up with it if I visit the US), but the fact that your right to bear arms is restricted on planes would suggest to me that it wouldn't succeed.
The TSA was created in 2001. What are you talking about?
Before TSA, the it was the companies that contracted out the security screening. The private companies have the right to choose whether they want guns on their planes. That's the reason no one's really bothered attacking the TSA on that. What's being attacked, and rightly so, is 1) the very existence of the TSA (my argument) and 2) the superfluous things TSA is doing just because they think they get immunity for being a government agency (Ron Paul's argument).
Post by
Theder
The TSA has it right. We should start using these procedures in schools so noone comes in shooting up the place or someone getting a stab wound. I mean, it's all for security, right?
This should be read with a large amount of sarcasm.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.