Time for the citizens to ask - whether that response was right.
“Those willing to give up a little bit of freedom to gain a little bit of security deserve neither and will soon lose both”
The bigger issue with these pat downs, scans, fluid limits, etc is whether they're effective.
Bruce Schneier has written at great length (and very smartly) about this stuff. And I agree with him that the single most effective deterrent to the next 9/11 is secure cockpit doors, and a close second is passengers not willing to "allow" a plane to get hijacked anymore (whereas hijackings in the past had a sliver of hope that you'd get out safely, after 9/11 I think passengers know there might be certain death, so why not fight?)
The ACLU mounted an attack on the no-fly list that was credible enough government changed procedure.
This would imply drivers licenses and car registration are also unconstitutional. You can tax them and have traffic laws, but not do those things.
The constitution does not specify the first bit either; it's all been inferred by court rulings [0]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...
What draws the most interest is the right to enter states freely. Combine that with the need to travel and participate in commerce and you quickly arrive at the conclusion the right to travel in general must also be protected, and indeed we can see the hardships brought upon people when they are unable to drive, etc.
Even if someone offers you a flight for free, that takes away from alternatives like driving(which funds gas stations, hotels, restaurants, etc.). So your choice to fly affects interstate commerce, and they can ban that too.
> The govt has no right to prevent us from flying
You have also misunderstood the Constitution. The government does have the right to limit our individual rights either because we have lost them after due process (eg. you have no right to fly if you are serving a prison sentence) or due to national security actions (eg. you have no right to fly if the country grounds all flights like it did immediately after 9/11).
Has that even been tested in court? If you live in Hawaii not being able to use airlines would be a massive restriction. The right to free movement has been written into most every constitution because the framers had actual experience with oppressive government that issued internal passports to silence revolutionaries.
The TSA made this weird (where government employees are enforcing things on "private" land like an airport for a "private" flight) but that's post 9/11 weirdness for you.
* you don't have the right to drive (I think this widely affirmed in the courts)
* you don't have the right to use public transport (after all, if they can ban planes, why not trains or buses?)
* you don't have the right to bike (after all, if motor vehicles are regulated, why not all vehicles?)
* you don't have the right to walk on interstates
I don't know of a case of someone being barred from being a passenger in a car, and doubt very much that this would stand up to legal scrutiny. The state does have a public safety interest in mandating who can operate fairly heavy machinery in public though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Ferry
The ferries are especially useful if you want to take a bicycle across the river.
It is actually prohibited even in emergencies. Pedestrians absolutely have no right of way in an interstate. You must ask for rescue if you get stuck as a result of collision or a car failure.
In California, for example, bicycling or waling on freeway shoulders is permitted except where specifically prohibited and signed. Bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibted from most California Interstate highways where there are alterantives bicycle and pedestrian routes, but there are mnay California Interstates on which bicyclists and pedesrians are allowed, including sections of I-5, I-10, and I-80.
In California, state law expressly allows walking along a freeway in an emergency:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
Constitutional rights can still be restricted if they meet the relevant test, for due process it is generally rational basis. Requiring licensed drivers, registering cars, meets the rational basis test and is not unconstitutional. Restricting interstates/freeways to vehicles capable of 55+(when there are other roads available, there are some areas where bicycles or walking is allowed on freeways) also generally meets the rational basis test and is not unconstitutional.
Traveling is not the same thing as driving. Being a passenger, vs driving. You could have your right to drive restricted because you were convicted of a crime and pose a danger to others, but that doesn't usually mean your right to travel is restricted.
You generally do have a right to use public transit, unless you have been given due process and lost that right.
Additionally, much of the land surrounding the city is closed for fire restrictions, or as the result of the Bush fire burn scar being ecologically fragile.
Practically, this isn't more than an annoyance as people find they can't return home from weekend vacations up north. But ideologically being literally prohibited from legal travel is unbefitting of somewhere once called "the land of the free."
I am actually very much a live and let live type person. Where I start having issues is when your lifestyle puts others in danger. Drink all you want... at home. Or in a bar. But get a taxi home. If you are going to be a belligerent drunk that's harassing others, you absolutely should be kicked out of even public transportation.
I am totally against MANY of the policies of the TSA (mostly on grounds of what's effective, and also what's unnecessarily invasive from a privacy standpoint). But I am not against the existence of something like a TSA.
Is it a "right" if it can be taken away? You can definitely be prohibited from driving for things like DUIs.
>* you don't have the right to walk on interstates
This is already the case.
Of course. Every person that was ever murdered had a right to live, even when it was taken away. Would you say that they didn't?
Rights exists regardless of whether they are respected, that's what makes them rights.
Do you not have a right to be a passenger in a car? Does the government have a right to prohibit you from accepting rides from your friends, or paying a licensed cab driver?
Similarly, while there is no explicit right, the argumentation of "it is a privilege" seems.. not sure what the proper word would.. self-serving for the government.
Of course you do. Read the Ninth Amendment.
I have a problem with the gov demanding this for everyone.
In other words, if you look like an Arab, you get treated very differently than if your last name is Schneier [1].
And while I'm dubious about claims that all those brown people are "randomly selected" in the USA, there would be serious pushback if the official public policy at US airports was one of racial profiling.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_profiling_in_Israel#At_...
A restriction of your freedoms, whether protected or not, is a restriction of your liberties.
Some liberties are constitutionally protected. Some are protected by state law. Some aren't protected at all. They're all still liberties though.
Similarly, an employer restricting topics of conversation in the workplace is in fact placing restrictions on your free speech. It's just not constitutionally protected in that instance, is generally permitted by state and local law, and seems to be largely culturally acceptable.
That is an important distinction compared to random searches because you "might" have done something wrong.
So sure, we can talk about the trade offs and whether we should require IDs at the airport. But the quote, I think, is a misrepresentation of the stakes.