Hacker News Reader

Comment by CPLX | Hacker News Reader

There isn't much of an articulable case for these rules to be unconstitutional. It's not analogous to freedoms people have in their personal life.

They're using the Federal aviation system, public property airports, being routed by the FAA, and so on. It's much more analogous to requirements for auto safety and licensing.

The government can't mandate the color of your shirt in your own home, but they can mandate the exact shade of your turn signals when you're on public roads.

I'm not a fan of our current security state, it's insane. But air travel isn't a private act, it's important to calibrate the conversation to the issue actually at hand.

View on HN

I’ll jump in here. I believe the constitution does provide a right to travel both domestically and internationally.

When I choose flight as my mode of transport, and I choose to do business with a private company, (entering into a private contract with that company to convey my body from one location to another), I believe the government demanding that I be searched and inspected and scanned in order to allow the private company and I to conduct our private business of providing me with transportation is unconstitutional. The federal government does not have an affirmative grant of power over my right to travel, and two because I have the right to travel. All powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people.

I feel like this fallacy that travel is a privilege comes from the whole “driving is a privilege” concept. But keep in mind, while driving is a privilege (under STATE law), riding isn’t a privilege, it’s a right. I may need the blessing of a STATE government to drive a car across state lines, but I don’t need the blessing of state or federal government to ride as a passenger in a vehicle across state lines. In the case of the flight, I’m not engaged in a regulated activity of flying a plane, I’m merely a citizen exercising their right to travel.

Sure there is, I'll articulate one: the federal government is giving preferential treatment to people who waive their constitutional privacy rights (and pay money) and going out of its way to intentionally inconvenience those who don't pay up and give up their rights. The government giving explicit preferential treatment to people who waive their constitutional rights and punishing those who don't is a clear violation of citizens' constitutional rights: if the government can do whatever it wants to make you miserable until you waive your rights, you don't really have them.

It's analogous to a state government monitoring citizens' speech, picking out anyone who criticizes the governor's political party, and banning them from using the freeway.

Would my argument pass legal muster? No, I'm not a lawyer and I thought of it in 3 minutes on a Friday afternoon. Is it articulable? Yes. Could the court rule in my favor if it were explained better by someone with esquire at the end of their name? Sure. Judges often accept or make any argument they like no matter how bad so long as it fits in with their political ideology.

>> It's much more analogous to requirements for auto safety and licensing.

There are clear constitutional Bounders here, a Police Officer can not simply pull you over, search you, question you, and detain you with out a clear articuable reason to believe you have or are about to violate the law in some way.

We have no destroyed the 4th amendment to that point yet, but I know people like you continue to try.

>> But air travel isn't a private act,

People like me believe it should be, No Public Airports, not Public anything. It should be a private transaction where me a Private citizen contract with a Private company to transport me from A to B,

Reply on news.ycombinator.com