Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Judge rules no-fly list violates constitutionally protected right to travel

  1. #1
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318

    Judge rules no-fly list violates constitutionally protected right to travel

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...onal/11320105/

    Sorry if this is already posted, didn't see it.


    Very interesting. I think it is score 1 for liberty.
    Advocate freedom please

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I can neither confirm nor deny that I am on any "watch list" maintained by the United States Government, or referred by such to the Government of any other nation-state.

    However, it is my assertion that if I am not on at least one such "watch list" maintained by the United States Government, or referred by such to the Government of any other nation-state, that my life's work and political and moral activities to have been in vain.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    My 75 y.o. wife (4'11" 100#) and I flew to NC a couple of weeks ago. She got the treatment, while my pre-check worked.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Thank you

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    I can neither confirm nor deny that I am on any "watch list" maintained by the United States Government, or referred by such to the Government of any other nation-state.

    However, it is my assertion that if I am not on at least one such "watch list" maintained by the United States Government, or referred by such to the Government of any other nation-state, that my life's work and political and moral activities to have been in vain.

    stay safe.
    +1 very quotable
    Advocate freedom please

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    I can neither confirm nor deny that I am on any "watch list" maintained by the United States Government, or referred by such to the Government of any other nation-state.

    However, it is my assertion that if I am not on at least one such "watch list" maintained by the United States Government, or referred by such to the Government of any other nation-state, that my life's work and political and moral activities to have been in vain.

    stay safe.
    +1
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The court read
    their complaint to raise only procedural claims regarding the
    sufficiency of the grievance procedures available to contest
    their apparent inclusion on the List. ...


    DHS TRIP does not appear to provide any mechanism
    for Plaintiffs to challenge the adequacy of the process itself,
    and the record does not reveal whether their procedural chal-
    lenge has been reviewed on the merits in any prior administra-
    tive proceeding. Accordingly, we also remand Plaintiffs’
    procedural challenge to the district court for such further pro-
    ceedings as may be required to make an adequate record to
    support consideration of their claims.


    From opinion ^^^^


    Is this a finding that the process is BS?

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...onal/11320105/

    Sorry if this is already posted, didn't see it.


    Very interesting. I think it is score 1 for liberty.
    I think that its a revelation, one of many, that the gov'ts don't give a crap about fairness or due process.

    I just wrote a brief in which an admin agency wanted to supplement a record to include new arguments (a court case remanded back to admin level hearing wherein the admin body wanted to add new arguments to support their views while not allowing me to offer rebuttal ~ the court is allowing the admin agency to take the newly produced admin arguments and not allow me a rebuttal before the admin agency regarding the new arguments ~ but the court also noted that my motion to strike the new record was denied without prejudice). So I have experienced, as many have, the unfairness of administrative bodies ~ they just make up crap most of the time IMO & this federal case has similarities to mine ~ a person is seen by the admin agency to have no right to rebut.

    So while this gets bounced back ... I don't think it will be a win for the people. The admin agency will make up some crap.

  9. #9
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Yeah, it did seem more like she was saying the no due process was the kicker component, which kind of leaves the door open for minor alterations to the practice to allow it to be reinstated till the next court case, which could easily go the other way. So perhaps not the biggest win.
    Advocate freedom please

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Yeah, it did seem more like she was saying the no due process was the kicker component, which kind of leaves the door open for minor alterations to the practice to allow it to be reinstated till the next court case, which could easily go the other way. So perhaps not the biggest win.
    I totally agree with the initial idea of the court though...the process is not fair, and that's what admin processes are supposed to be: FAIR which is beyond "due process". An admin process is different than a regular court proceeding that is governed by well understood evidence rules and due process rules...that's why the notion of "fairness" prevails, or should.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Confused ?

    Does the opinion inferr we have a right to travel?

    I ask because of an incident I had with TSA. I could not find any legal counsel that would take on my complaint, it was finally explained to me air travel is voluntary. You want to fly,, you must comply.

    I'm still waving the penalty flag at TSA for thier conduct but have no redress.


    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitney View Post
    Does the opinion inferr we have a right to travel?

    I ask because of an incident I had with TSA. I could not find any legal counsel that would take on my complaint, it was finally explained to me air travel is voluntary. You want to fly,, you must comply.

    I'm still waving the penalty flag at TSA for thier conduct but have no redress.


    ~Whitney
    No, the opinion states we have a right to travel. Page 20 of 38.

    ...Plaintiid have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in travel and reputation....
    4th, 5th, 6th Amendment + 14th Amendment rights protect that "liberty interest". (I'd add 8th Amendment in this case. PM me if you do not understand why.)

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  13. #13
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    It's so ridiculous. Someone blows up a building and as a result kids in wheelchairs and grandmas are made to strip and take off their shoes. Brilliant.

    NOT ONE terrorist was ever caught by the TSA. And the NSA is talking maybe half a dozen, unless they counted wrong.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitney View Post
    Does the opinion inferr we have a right to travel?

    I ask because of an incident I had with TSA. I could not find any legal counsel that would take on my complaint, it was finally explained to me air travel is voluntary. You want to fly,, you must comply.

    I'm still waving the penalty flag at TSA for thier conduct but have no redress.


    ~Whitney
    We have the right to ASSEMBLE = right to travel

    One cannot assemble without the right to travel.

    I had the TSA tell me that too ... their argument did not affect me at all .. I did not comply & I continued on w/my travel

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    We have the right to ASSEMBLE = right to travel

    One cannot assemble without the right to travel.

    I had the TSA tell me that too ... their argument did not affect me at all .. I did not comply & I continued on w/my travel
    Quite correct. The means and act of traveling range from pedestrian, through equestrian, motor passenger, air passenger to space-warped transporter and jaunting (a la Alfred Bester's Gully Foyle in The Stars My Destination 1956).

    Only pedestrian and equestrian travel does not require license from the state.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    ...

    Only pedestrian and equestrian travel does not require license from the state.
    ...yet.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    ...yet.
    We have only the rights that we defend.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    We have only the rights that we defend.
    Defend how? Easy to say until a cop shows up next to you and your unlicensed horse.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Yea, the way I see it rights exist with or without having to defend them. I never blame the victims for the acts of the aggressor.

    Defenseless children are victims of horrendous abuse. They still have the right not to be abused.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    ...yet.
    well, when you get to the airport and they say "you have no right to be a passenger on a plane"...just retort back "well, I guess I'll just have to fly it then!"

    WE decide the mode of transportation .. not some guberment lackey ...

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Yea, the way I see it rights exist with or without having to defend them. I never blame the victims for the acts of the aggressor.

    Defenseless children are victims of horrendous abuse. They still have the right not to be abused.
    Actually, they have a right to defend themselves which mitigates or obviates abuse. The government makes kids, after a certain age, defenseless. Government goons further enable kids to remain defenseless by enforcing unconstitutional laws and unlawful school policies.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    ,,,

    WE decide the mode of transportation .. not some guberment lackey ...
    You go right ahead and exert your decision making powers...please get back to us on how it went.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Actually, they have a right to defend themselves which mitigates or obviates abuse. The government makes kids, after a certain age, defenseless. Government goons further enable kids to remain defenseless by enforcing unconstitutional laws and unlawful school policies.

    Good points and yes they do have the right to defend themselves.

    Like children who capitulate to abuse of a much stronger adult, most in society capitulate to the abuse of the state, the rights still exist whether they do this or not.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •