Serenity AS Constitution?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 15:15
VIEWED: 6265
PAGE 5 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Sunday, January 29, 2006 6:00 PM

Hey, I bitched and moaned to my Senators about that, and I bitched and moaned about that here on the board. Not that the Senate is the right forum to complain, but the Supreme Court Justices are pretty immune to public dissuasion. (Which is why we have to be pretty careful about who gets on in the first place.) But fortunately a number of states have since passd laws preventing that kind of travesty. So contact your state Legislators. Fortunately, this is still w/in the purview of the States.

BTW- Do you suppose Mal would have been for or against the right of the government to snoop into anyone's business?
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

FLETCH2

Sunday, January 29, 2006 6:26 PM

Then pass a law and fix it.

The Supreme court only reviews a law and sees if it is Constitutionally consistant. Guess what, you are a Common Law country right of Eminent Domain is in your Constitution. Further the case law that the decision was based on was extrablished over 20 years ago. If anything the more conservative justices were being reactionary and trying to overturn that ruling which was simultaiously

1) the morally right thing to do and
2) not the established legal principle.

Politicians could solve this in a heartbeat with a law that defines the limits of eminent domain, they choose not to. They could solve the Roe vs Wade issue with legislation, again they chose not to. The supreme court isn't the one taking your property, your (local) government is.

JUMPER

Sunday, January 29, 2006 6:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Did you know that the law/federal regulation which states you need to show ID to get on an airplane is secret? Yes, we have secret laws that apply to American citizens, laws that none of us are allowed to inspect.

I'm pretty sure that's an airline policy, and not a law. But then again, it's the airlines prerogative, so unless you want to charter your own flights, it doesn't matter.

No, it's a TSA regulation. It is passed down orally to each airport, and varies from airport to airport, and is updated weekly. John Gilmore just sued over not being able to see the regulation - the circuit court judges looked at it in private and promptly determined that it is A-OK to have secret laws that bind US citizens.

Check it out here: http://papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html

I wonder what other secret laws there are?

"We need to take you to jail now sir."
"Why? I want to see a lawyer."
"We can't allow that sir."
"Under what law?"
"That's classified sir."

FLETCH2

Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:39 PM

It's not a law it's a regulation or order.

If it's a law you can be arrested for violating it, in this case if you don't show ID you just aren't allowed to fly. You have no constitutional right to fly just like you have no constitutional right to drive (despite what PN appears to think)

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jumper:
No, it's a TSA regulation. It is passed down orally to each airport, and varies from airport to airport, and is updated weekly. John Gilmore just sued over not being able to see the regulation - the circuit court judges looked at it in private and promptly determined that it is A-OK to have secret laws that bind US citizens.

It’s not the regulation requiring identification that is secret but rather the CAPPS, which is a Decision Architecture for discriminating potential terrorists/hijackers. This is secret because if the criteria by which a person is identified as a potential threat were public, that information could be used as a countermeasure against it, indeed it could render it impotent, thereby providing terrorists with an avenue to hi-jack airliners and use them as precision bombs to cripple US defensive network and kill tens of thousands.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hey, I bitched and moaned to my Senators about that, and I bitched and moaned about that here on the board. Not that the Senate is the right forum to complain, but the Supreme Court Justices are pretty immune to public dissuasion. (Which is why we have to be pretty careful about who gets on in the first place.) But fortunately a number of states have since passd laws preventing that kind of travesty. So contact your state Legislators. Fortunately, this is still w/in the purview of the States.

BTW- Do you suppose Mal would have been for or against the right of the government to snoop into anyone's business?

I was on the phone within hours of hearing about that case, and Alabama was the first state to pass such laws. In fact, if I remember correctly, I think a whole month went by before we had enacted protections against this Left-wing Supreme Court ruling. I’m not sure if I had anything to do with that, but I certainly put my 2 ¢ in.

The government has always snooped, and it always will. But clearly the lines between individual property rights and central authority over property falls cleanly on ideology within the Supreme Court. So the choice may be as simple as encouraging the ideology within the government that most assures us protection from centralization. Snooping will always come with the deal.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

JUMPER

Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
It's not a law it's a regulation or order.

If it's a law you can be arrested for violating it, in this case if you don't show ID you just aren't allowed to fly. You have no constitutional right to fly just like you have no constitutional right to drive (despite what PN appears to think)

We do, however, have the right to assemble and associate without government interference.

Quote:
It’s not the regulation requiring identification that is secret but rather the CAPPS, which is a Decision Architecture for discriminating potential terrorists/hijackers. This is secret because if the criteria by which a person is identified as a potential threat were public, that information could be used as a countermeasure against it, indeed it could render it impotent, thereby providing terrorists with an avenue to hi-jack airliners and use them as precision bombs to cripple US defensive network and kill tens of thousands.

I'm pretty sure the regulation itself is secret as well. Since that was the entire point of the lawsuit. He wasn't asking to see the CAPPS criteria, just a copy of the regulation which states 'you are required to show ID to fly.'

The whole thing came about in 1996 after TWA 800 went down. For a while they thought it was a bomb, so to make it look like something was actually being done they asked airlines to start asking for ID. After 9/11 it was formalized and made permanent.

I highly doubt that the passengers of a plane would allow such a thing to happen again.

I'll be honest every time I fly I feel like I'm taking a step into Soviet Russia. It's like as soon as I step into the airport, it's not America anymore.

FLETCH2

Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:14 PM

That's only an argument if you planned to assemble on the aircraft and that was the only place you could assemble. You can drive anywhere you can fly within the US so you are not prevented from travelling pa see

JUMPER

Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
That's only an argument if you planned to assemble on the aircraft and that was the only place you could assemble. You can drive anywhere you can fly within the US so you are not prevented from travelling pa see

But as you stated earlier, I don't have a right to drive. Amtrack requires ID to buy tickets with cash. Amazingly enough, the Greyhound website says that I can still buy a Greyhound ticket with cash and doesn't say anything about requiring an ID. So it looks like if I want to move within my own country without showing an ID, I can either take a bus or take a cab. Sweet.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jumper:
I'm pretty sure the regulation itself is secret as well. Since that was the entire point of the lawsuit. He wasn't asking to see the CAPPS criteria, just a copy of the regulation which states 'you are required to show ID to fly.'

No, it’s not secret. As far as I know there is no law that says you need an ID to fly. So there is no way to show Mr. Gilmore that law since I don’t think it exists. The information that Mr. Gilmore is trying to get exposed is indeed the CAPPS program, because that is what is requiring identification. Although I don’t think that it is even mandatory. And Mr. Gilmore proved that, when an airliner was willing to allow him to fly without identification as long as he was willing to submit to an inspection. The secret CAPPS program is a convenience to allow a majority of people to make use of the airline industry with as little intrusion and as much efficiency as possible. The issue here is purely about maintaining security on airlines, nothing more. Anyone, not flagged on a no-fly list, can legally(federally) fly without an ID, but it is much easier to just show your ID.

Mr. Gilmore has too much money and too much time on his hands. And all he’s doing is feeding conspiracy fruitcakes and potentially putting us all at risk.

In fact, my guess is that what might happen as a result of Mr. Gilmore’s crusade will be that a law will be crafted that will indeed legally require identification to fly thereby mandating the CAPPS program and airline security, and Mr. Gilmore will get his law.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

CHRISISALL

Monday, January 30, 2006 1:33 AM

Only thing worse than a Liberal Looter is a Neocon Hawk.
Most of us here are more to the middle, I reckon.
I used to think Liberals were the good guys, Finn, you and Dreamtrove have shown me the errors of my ways.
Mal would moon 'em both.

Independent Chrisisall

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE