United Airlines kerfuffle

The lawsuit that he will win should afford him enough to purchase his own private plane..

My .02

CCJ

mikeyb said:

Yup. Big PR boo-boo. My wife was a former flight attendant, and she was pretty appalled that this happened. I understand "overselling" a flight to make sure that the flights are full, but perhaps airlines shouldn't be on such a thin margin that 3 or 4 seats means ultimate doom for the airline (obviously 3-4 seats per 150 routes adds up, but so does $3-4 more per ticket over 150 routes times ~200 passengers/avg).

Click to expand...

They are trying to fix it, check our their new commercial.

[video=youtube;qGrHRvVjSgY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGrHRvVjSgY[/video]

I think some additional reading is in order...

United Airlines Contract of Carriage

Here's some more interesting reading:

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/

And blue lives matter wives defend their husbands with the same fever. Same pretty much the same thing, comply, and if that don't work comply. Pretty much does reduce chances of a beat down, but many people do not want to live like slaves.

WalkingWolf said:

And blue lives matter wives defend their husbands with the same fever. Same pretty much the same thing, comply, and if that don't work comply. Pretty much does reduce chances of a beat down, but many people do not want to live like slaves.

Click to expand...

That's right. He, like every other paying customer on that flight, is required to comply with the terms and conditions of the legally binding contract that he willingly signed.

scooter348 said:

That's right. He, like every other paying customer on that flight, is required to comply with the terms and conditions of the legally binding contract that he willingly signed.

Click to expand...

I have never signed a contract to fly, they consider paying for the ticket the contract. Maybe they should be forced to actually get a signature from every passenger on every flight AFTER they have read fully the contract. Seems only fair to me.

scooter348 said:

That's right. He, like every other paying customer on that flight, is required to comply with the terms and conditions of the legally binding contract that he willingly signed.

Click to expand...

and you truly feel this way...?

so you are telling us you comply with the terms and conditions of every bank credit/debit/checking/savings accounting document, every last tenet of those contracts, as well as the other commerical contracts you have, and the state and federal statute that govern your life?

you are joking ~ right?

ipse

scooter348 said:

That's right. He, like every other paying customer on that flight, is required to comply with the terms and conditions of the legally binding contract that he willingly signed.

Click to expand...

Breaking a contract is a civil matter, and the breaker of said contract should not be subjected to a beaten by some over zealous criminals..

Scooter, please go wipe the boot polish from your lips..

Let's not forget that United did not follow federal regulations, pretty much breaking the contract themselves.

The passenger will be awarded a hefty amount of money.. And hopefully the three goons will be fired and barred from working in the law enforcement community..

Think of the rage that we would be feeling, if this criminal action was perpetrated on a family member or loved one.

My .02

CCJ

Nightmare said:

Not 'passengers' but de facto employees subject to corporate dress code.

Click to expand...

That's what I read. Whether you're the airline employee itself or a member of the family, you're still representing the airlines. The passes come with corporate dress code requirements, and those passes do indeed state that violators will be subject to removal.

countryclubjoe said:

My intent is not to deride the precepts and tenets of our founders, not at all.. I am simply pointing out that the document is not to be so plainly read..

Click to expand...

Why not? I was plainly written, and intentionally so.

There are eight thousand words in the US Constitution however they only begin to map out the basic ground rules that actually govern our land..

Click to expand...

True, it is a founding document, the basis and restriction for all subsequent law.

Quick examples, the idea that racial segregation is inherently unequal does not explicitly appear in the terse text.. The First Amendment prevents "Congress" from abridging various freedoms, but the Amendment does not expressly protect theses freedoms from abridgment by the president or state governments...

Click to expand...

Yet decisions by both state legislatures, state supreme courts, federal courts, and even the U.S. Supreme Court has extended those protections to the states.

None of the Constitution's early amendments explicitly limits state governments.

Click to expand...

Our very own, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" explicitly limits state governments, not to mention the local, county, and federal ones.

Although everyone today refers to these early amendments as " the Bill of Rights"... Now think about this, the phrase " Bill of Rights" is absent from the terse text.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call the text "terse." Also, in its original and final forms, it referred to itself as "further declaratory and restrictive clauses." However, the concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in several earlier documents, including the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the English Bill of Rights 1689, along with earlier documents such as Magna Carta (1215).

Furthermore, they were first officially referred to as "The Bill of Rights" during the Constitutional Convention took place from May 14 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, when...

"On September 12, George Mason of Virginia suggested the addition of a Bill of Rights to the Constitution modeled on previous state declarations, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts made it a formal motion.[8] However, the motion was defeated by a unanimous vote of the state delegations after only a brief discussion. Madison, then an opponent of a Bill of Rights, later explained the vote by calling the state bills of rights "parchment barriers" that offered only an illusion of protection against tyranny."

The subsequent road to ratification was fairly long and convoluted, but the term "Bill of Rights" actually precedes their second proposal.

Kind Sir, I have been reading and pondering the Constitution since folks actually wore a suit and a fedora at baseball games and somehow I always am amazed at its beauty and its complexities.. I have learned to read beyond, and around and over the original text. The founders I feel would have wanted us to do so..

Click to expand...

The Founders themselves often, and quite emphatically expressed the opposite. I can see how you might come to your errant conclusion if all you have studied since the days of suit and fedora baseball games, but what you should have studied were the some 50,000+ letters written by the founders on file with our Library Congress wherein they discussed a great many things, including how they intended the Constitution to be read. In summary, their intent is "as it is written," precisely the same as found in their New Testament. In the New Testament, we find the phrase “as it is written” mentioned 31 times, they knew full well what it meant, having studied it all their lives. The only way they surmised our Constitution and its first ten amendments would stand is if they were clear, concise, and straightforward, as indeed the full 12 pages of our Constitution are (when printed in Times New Roman, 12 pt type).

Liberty of thinking is not referenced in those eight thousand words however thinking about those words is what keeps the Constitution alive today...

Click to expand...

I think the Constitution stands on its own quite well, thank you very much. It does, however, require We the People to pull the rug out from beneath the "living document revisionists" from time to time, same as our Founding Fathers did decades ago.

Now Im putting on my suit and fedora and heading out to the ball park, is two bucks enough for a beer and hot dog. LOL

Click to expand...

Only if you buy cheap beer in a 12-pack and cook your own dogs! Won't be all that long before that'll run is $3 and some change...

since9 said:

Why not? I was plainly written, and intentionally so.



True, it is a founding document, the basis and restriction for all subsequent law.



Yet decisions by both state legislatures, state supreme courts, federal courts, and even the U.S. Supreme Court has extended those protections to the states.



Our very own, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" explicitly limits state governments, not to mention the local, county, and federal ones.



I wouldn't call the text "terse." Also, in its original and final forms, it referred to itself as "further declaratory and restrictive clauses." However, the concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in several earlier documents, including the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the English Bill of Rights 1689, along with earlier documents such as Magna Carta (1215).

Furthermore, they were first officially referred to as "The Bill of Rights" during the Constitutional Convention took place from May 14 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, when...

"On September 12, George Mason of Virginia suggested the addition of a Bill of Rights to the Constitution modeled on previous state declarations, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts made it a formal motion.[8] However, the motion was defeated by a unanimous vote of the state delegations after only a brief discussion. Madison, then an opponent of a Bill of Rights, later explained the vote by calling the state bills of rights "parchment barriers" that offered only an illusion of protection against tyranny."

The subsequent road to ratification was fairly long and convoluted, but the term "Bill of Rights" actually precedes their second proposal.



The Founders themselves often, and quite emphatically expressed the opposite. I can see how you might come to your errant conclusion if all you have studied since the days of suit and fedora baseball games, but what you should have studied were the some 50,000+ letters written by the founders on file with our Library Congress wherein they discussed a great many things, including how they intended the Constitution to be read. In summary, their intent is "as it is written," precisely the same as found in their New Testament. In the New Testament, we find the phrase “as it is written” mentioned 31 times, they knew full well what it meant, having studied it all their lives. The only way they surmised our Constitution and its first ten amendments would stand is if they were clear, concise, and straightforward, as indeed the full 12 pages of our Constitution are (when printed in Times New Roman, 12 pt type).



I think the Constitution stands on its own quite well, thank you very much. It does, however, require We the People to pull the rug out from beneath the "living document revisionists" from time to time, same as our Founding Fathers did decades ago.



Only if you buy cheap beer in a 12-pack and cook your own dogs! Won't be all that long before that'll run is $3 and some change...

Click to expand...

Thank you for the History lesson however it was not needed. Clearly I am not saying that Judges should supplant the original text. I argue that the "written Constitution" itself invites recourse to certain things outside the text-- things that form America's " unwritten Constitution". When view properly, America's unwritten Constitution supports and supplements the written Constitution WITHOUT supplanting it..
Take for example the Constitution's Ninth Amendment, which affirms the reality of various rights that are not textually " enumerate(ed)"-- rights that are concededly not listed in the document itself.. To take this amendment seriously, We (americans) must go beneath and beyond the Constitution's textually enumerated rights.. For example, even though the written text fails to specify a criminal defendant's entitlement to introduce reliable physical evidence of his innocence, surely this textual omission should not doom defendant's claim of said right. The Ninth Amendment is not the only portal welcoming us to look outside and go beyond the Constitution's text, and the trail of unenumerated rights is only one of several routes traveling in search of America's unwritten Constitution..

I applaud your reading and research however in reading the document's text, one (you) should consider journeying outside of the text itself.
The written Constitution cannot work as intended without something outside of it-- That something is America's unwritten Constitution to fill in its gaps and to stabilize it, In turn, America's unwritten Constitution could never properly ignore the written Constitution, which is itself an integral part of the American experience..

In a review of Our Constitution's most important topics, from federalism, congressional practice, executive power, and judicial review to race relations, woman's rights, popular constitutionalism, criminal procedure, voting rights, and the amendment process. In a close study of the aforementioned topics, we (you) shall see how America's TWO Constitutions, written and unwritten, cohere to form a single constitutional system. One cannot exist without the other in American jurisprudence...

My .02

Since9, I enjoy the civil discourse on our great document.

Regards
CCJ

countryclubjoe said:

Thank you for the History lesson however it was not needed. Clearly I am not saying that Judges should supplant the original text. I argue that the "written Constitution" itself invites recourse to certain things outside the text-- things that form America's " unwritten Constitution". When view properly, America's unwritten Constitution supports and supplements the written Constitution WITHOUT supplanting it..
Take for example the Constitution's Ninth Amendment, which affirms the reality of various rights that are not textually " enumerate(ed)"-- rights that are concededly not listed in the document itself.. To take this amendment seriously, We (americans) must go beneath and beyond the Constitution's textually enumerated rights.. For example, even though the written text fails to specify a criminal defendant's entitlement to introduce reliable physical evidence of his innocence, surely this textual omission should not doom defendant's claim of said right. The Ninth Amendment is not the only portal welcoming us to look outside and go beyond the Constitution's text, and the trail of unenumerated rights is only one of several routes traveling in search of America's unwritten Constitution..

Click to expand...

Ok, now I'm tracking, CCJ.

I applaud your reading and research however in reading the document's text, one (you) should consider journeying outside of the text itself.
The written Constitution cannot work as intended without something outside of it-- That something is America's unwritten Constitution to fill in its gaps and to stabilize it, In turn, America's unwritten Constitution could never properly ignore the written Constitution, which is itself an integral part of the American experience..

Click to expand...

I think the greatest extra textualism involves that one book, widely available, and read by more than any other: The Bible. Indeed, more than one Founding Father argued that without the precepts of the Bible, the Constitution would not stand. Add to that our early history and culture.

In a review of Our Constitution's most important topics, from federalism, congressional practice, executive power, and judicial review to race relations, woman's rights, popular constitutionalism, criminal procedure, voting rights, and the amendment process. In a close study of the aforementioned topics, we (you) shall see how America's TWO Constitutions, written and unwritten, cohere to form a single constitutional system. One cannot exist without the other in American jurisprudence...

My .02

Since9, I enjoy the civil discourse on our great document.

Regards
CCJ

Click to expand...

I enjoy it, as well.

Unwritten constitution. Liberal claptrap. A book of the same name from a Yale professor. His premises is based on interpreting of the actual (plain language) text of the constitution. I wonder how he interprets the 2A? Perhaps the 3A is ambiguous and needs re-interpreting.

Terry v. Ohio is born of judges interpreting the plain text of the constitution. All the rights we have (need?) are contained (clearly enumerated) in the first eight amendments.

OC for ME said:

Unwritten constitution. Liberal claptrap. A book of the same name from a Yale professor. His premises is based on interpreting of the actual (plain language) text of the constitution. I wonder how he interprets the 2A? Perhaps the 3A is ambiguous and needs re-interpreting.

Terry v. Ohio is born of judges interpreting the plain text of the constitution. All the rights we have (need?) are contained (clearly enumerated) in the first eight amendments.

Click to expand...

Liberal claptrap or not, one cannot dismiss the facts that an unwritten constitution exist. And one must read outside of the text to understand the text itself..

OC, i must humbly disagree with your opinion that the "first eight amendments". contain ALL the rights that we have.. It is in fact the unforgotten Ninth amendment that incorporates the unenumerated rights of the first eight.. Please read the Ninth amendment to memory, and see how it explains the first eight, in a plain and simple way..

" The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"..

See Griswold v Connecticut ( the ninth amendment tells us how to read other parts of the constitution) Justice Goldberg

The first eight amendments are obviously called " the bill of rights" however this phrase too, is UNWRITTEN. The phrases " separation of powers", "checks and balances," and " the rule of law" are also absent from the written Constitution however all these things are part of America's working constitutional system AKA part of America's unwritten Constitution..

We are all textualists; we are all living constitutionalist, however to fully understand and interpreted the written text, we must journey outside the text and compare the document to doctrines of law.

My .02

OC, while I understand that you are at times ambivalent towards me, I feel it wise for us both and the board, that we opine and share points of view even if said views conflict. Civil discourse lends itself to knowledge for all that care to be involved, either via just reading or responding via post.

" Reading furnishes the mind with materials of knowledge, it is thinking that makes what we read ours' John Locke

" New opinions are always suspected and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common" John Locke

Always a pleasure opining Sir!
Regards
CCJ

since9 said:

Ok, now I'm tracking, CCJ.



I think the greatest extra textualism involves that one book, widely available, and read by more than any other: The Bible. Indeed, more than one Founding Father argued that without the precepts of the Bible, the Constitution would not stand. Add to that our early history and culture.



I enjoy it, as well.

Click to expand...

However there is NO mention of said Bible anywhere in the text, therefore reading beyond the text is a must to fully understand what is indeed actually written.
My .02
Regards
CCJ

countryclubjoe said:

Liberal claptrap or not, one cannot dismiss the facts that an unwritten constitution exist. And one must read outside of the text to understand the text itself..

OC, i must humbly disagree with your opinion that the "first eight amendments". contain ALL the rights that we have.. It is in fact the unforgotten Ninth amendment that incorporates the unenumerated rights of the first eight.. Please read the Ninth amendment to memory, and see how it explains the first eight, in a plain and simple way..

" The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"..

See Griswold v Connecticut ( the ninth amendment tells us how to read other parts of the constitution) Justice Goldberg

The first eight amendments are obviously called " the bill of rights" however this phrase too, is UNWRITTEN. The phrases " separation of powers", "checks and balances," and " the rule of law" are also absent from the written Constitution however all these things are part of America's working constitutional system AKA part of America's unwritten Constitution..

We are all textualists; we are all living constitutionalist, however to fully understand and interpreted the written text, we must journey outside the text and compare the document to doctrines of law.

My .02

OC, while I understand that you are at times ambivalent towards me, I feel it wise for us both and the board, that we opine and share points of view even if said views conflict. Civil discourse lends itself to knowledge for all that care to be involved, either via just reading or responding via post.

" Reading furnishes the mind with materials of knowledge, it is thinking that makes what we read ours' John Locke

" New opinions are always suspected and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common" John Locke

Always a pleasure opining Sir!
Regards
CCJ

Click to expand...

Produce this unwritten constitution, Sir. Then we may debate its contents and meanings.

I submit that all of our rights derive from the liberty to peaceably do with our private property as we see fit without government interference. Having a right to our life should go without saying.

I am responsible for my privacy (life, liberty, and property), the government must not be used to guard my privacy for me.

My understandings of the 1A thru the 10A:

1A: life, liberty and property
2A: life, liberty and property
3A: life, liberty and property
4A: life, liberty and property
5A: life, liberty and property
6A: life, liberty and property
7A: liberty and property, life perhaps, depending on the suit at hand
8A: life, liberty and property
9A: Applicable to federal government acts
10A: Applicable to federal government acts

Simplicity itself. Every law is a intrusion on my life, liberty and property. We elect folks to enact laws that benefit a society that we desire, our willingness to suffer some restrictions on our life, liberty and property. Citing a unwritten constitution is what liberals regurgitate to undermine the plain readings of the written constitution.

By "property," Locke meant more than land and goods that could be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one's self, which included a right to personal well being. Jefferson, however, substituted the phrase, "pursuit of happiness," which Locke and others had used to describe freedom of opportunity as well as the duty to help those in want.

http://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html

Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights addresses every aspect of our lives, liberty and property.