Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
The Constitution gives no rights.
Rights existed before the government.
Governments were instituted to secure rights - not deny them.
The right to travel is what is at stake.
When the government steps in and says you cannot exercise the right to travel unless you surrender your right to privacy, a right they swore to protect (4th amendment), it's wrong.
|
No offense Jet, but minor quibbles and further explanation:
The Constitution declares the rights that exist. This includes the critical 9thAM and 10thAM which most people ignore as confusing [and one USSC justice declared was a 'vacant' amendment, with nothing to add]. The 9thAM declares that not all of our rights were written down; the 10thAM says that the feds are limited to the authorities described, and everything else -
every thing else - belongs to the states or to the people if the states don't want it.
Rights pre-exist government in the same way god pre-exists his creation - i.e., in the theoretical conjurings of the Navel Gazers doing the theoretical conjuring of the number of rights that can dance on the head of a pin. Rights cannot exist without a means of enforcing them. That means is "government".
Our government was created to enforce and protect our rights - not all governments are built for that purpose. Most are built for the purpose of furthering their own interests at the expense of anyone, including citizens, who dare to get in the way. Our government has developed this traditional expedient in growing rapidity over the last 100 years.
The right to travel is indeed what is at stake, and it's not made any easier by the self-serving artards who insist on declaring "'
X'
is not a right, it's a privilege." Yes. It is a right. Driving, flying, being a passenger in either vehicle ... they are rights. The 9thAM is still there. The feds only have those authorities to unilaterally control that were given them and getting all bossy-britches about when/how/why we move around the country wasn't one of them.
Nowhere does the Constitution give the government the authority to limit the concurrent usage of a citizens rights to one at a time, nor to deny an enumerated right based upon a declaration that another concurrent activity is not a rightful activity.
ex: we cannot properly be given the choice: "
You can use your 1stAM right to ***** about TSA abuses, or you can exercise your 4thAM right to be secure in your person and effects". Hobson didn't write the Constitution.
ex: we cannot properly be told "
since driving is only a privilege, you have no right to be secure in your person or automotive effect while you're driving."
===============================
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevK
The Constitution does not give you the right to fly on a plane.
|
Kevin: you'd be right except for one thing: you're wrong.
I cannot overstate this: the 9thAM and 10thAM exist. They furthermore mean what they say.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevK
The government is not forcing anyboy to submit to the TSA.
|
Again: you'd be right except you aren't.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevK
If you do not wish to go through TSA procedures, there are alternate methods of travel such as private car, Greyhound or Amtrak.
|
Yet - according to your corrupt and authoritarian philosophy - none of those other options are rightful activities, either. Isn't one simply jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire by availing oneself of it? [the answer you seek to maintain intellectual credibility is "yes". You're welcome]
Private vehicles are already [in fact were the first example of] the whole-cloth tyranny of "implied consent". You get behind the wheel of a vehicle, you implicitly give consent to be subjected to random, capricious, warrantless denial of your declared rights. Being merely a
passenger on an aircraft supposedly grants this same voidance of rights; what is there to stop the feds from similarly declaring the 4thAM void for bus or train passengers? [the answer you need to remain a logically consistent debater is "nothing". You're welcome again]
Actually, according to the "flying/driving isn't a right; it's a privilege" the only mode of transportation left to people who want to be somewhere else at any given moment is ... no, not horse & buggy. I can't ride mine on public "improved" roads or in incorporated parts of the county at all. So we're left with ... no, not walking either. Every municipality of any size and every state has multiple laws and ordinances for what you can do while you're walking, not the least of which is "not be drunk".
Time for you to climb into a hole, I guess, there, Kev.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
