The RIGHT to travel

color of law said:

Quit acting like an ass.

Courts do not grant you rights. Courts can only deprive someone of their rights.

So, your question “Can someone support the assertion that a court has ruled that air travel is a right?” is odious at best. Such question demonstrates your erroneous concept in how the court system actually operates.

The Supreme Court has consistently treated the right to international travel as a liberty interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and has pointed that out as far back as 55 years ago.

And no, I am not going to do research for you.

You being an intellectual neophyte, in short a troll, ain't worth our time in getting into a discussion with you over this subject.

Your assignment is to find that 55 year old Supreme Court case that recognizes the right to travel (in whatever form) as being a liberty protected by the Constitution.

Until that happens your participation is an unnecessary distraction and will be treated as such.

Moving on.

Click to expand...

countryclubjoe said:

Kent v Dulles (1958)

CCJ

Click to expand...

"The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."

And...

Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. See Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44; Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270, 274; Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160. "Our nation," wrote Chafee, "has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases."

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

You, sir, are behaving like an ass.

I am making the simple, rational request that the contention that a judge ruled that air travel is a right be backed up by a citation of the very specific case that made that very specific ruling.

If folks don't like that others are being asked to "cite to authority," as OCDO rules require be done, I can't help that and will not concern myself with it. I will simply and straightforwardly ask again that the OP (or anyone else) cite the very specific case cited in the first post.

To often folks post references to these cases, not having read them, blindly accepting the conclusions of others as to what these cases say.

I have no idea. The case may well say what the headlines says it does. It may not. As a rational person, I'd like to read the case for myself.

Click to expand...

Rule(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

Click to expand...

davidmcbeth said:

Yeah, he should not have posted a case ... let eye howl ... crybaby he is...

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

An indirect cite by citing an article that cites a ruling is a poor excuse. He posted the headline from the article. The headline itself makes the claim. His manner of posting it implies the statements truth. Common courtesy and OCDO rules require that he back that up.

A simple cite to the ruling would suffice. That he (and some surrogates) are going to so much trouble to avoid citing to authority (in the face or reasonable requests) speaks volumes.

So, keep it up. Every time someone makes an excuse for not citing, I will simply repost the request for that in a reasonable manner.

Have you really moved on? I got my money on no.

Click to expand...

color of law said:

Bla bla bla

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

A truly intelligent response. I see you cannot move on.

Anyway, as far as I can tell A case was cited. THE case was not.

So, again, can someone, OP or otherwise, cite the case referenced in the first post where a judge ruled that air travel was a right?

Keep blathering. I will simply keep posting my reasonable request.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

Click to expand...

MackTheKnife said:

Your request is not reasonable as your posts were not reasonable in the OC vs CC thread. A case WAS cited yet you persist in asking for an "air travel" case. Judge Brown ruled in the case cited filed by the Muslims on the no-fly list where she said DOJ was wrong in their "mere inconvenience" argument and travel was constitutionally guaranteed. The case was specifically about air travel.

Razor Max Tapatalk.

Click to expand...

Freedom1Man said:

And the Gorilla made a claim that there is a law that requires all firearms dealers are required to have customers fill out a Form 4473 to buy a firearm. I've asked him to cite the law and he has failed to do so repeatedly.

Click to expand...