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.
Either is satisfactory, but the ninth guarantees travel since it's not specifically prohibited. In order to prohibit it, they'd have to do what they did with alcohol and actually set up an amendment. So, travel is a right. The court cases back these rights up as well.
You didn't answer my other question. Who was watching me? Is your tin foil hat picking up stronger signals today?
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,877,655 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw30000
TSA is here to stay. They will expand to other government control entitle. If you think by not flying will avoid them, think again. They will soon expand to train/bus to "protect" you, and then to school to "protect" your children.
They are 50k strong now, and soon it will be 100k and then 200k.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,877,655 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggJoe4181
^ so which one is it? The 5th or the 9th?
See this is the problem with interpertation......
Interpretation by the Supreme Court is a reputable source.
In the Kent v Dulles[3] case the court held that: "(a) The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
Interpretation by the Supreme Court is a reputable source.
In the Kent v Dulles[3] case the court held that: "(a) The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
LOL. I wasn't disputing the fact that the Supreme Court is a reputible source for interpertation....I was commenting on the fact that you both (summers and jwm) interpreted the bill of rights differently.
LOL. I wasn't disputing the fact that the Supreme Court is a reputible source for interpertation....I was commenting on the fact that you both (summers and jwm) interpreted the bill of rights differently.
What's a matter? Thread not going the way you hoped?
What's a matter? Thread not going the way you hoped?
Um...no. I could really care less if the thread goes my way or not. I've stated my opinion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
Um...no. I could really care less if the thread goes my way or not. I've stated my opinion. 
