Constitution 101

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Cartoon Peril, Aug 14, 2011.

  1. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    Yeah, I look like an old hick mesmerized by modern technology. Actually, I'm hitting the keys with my fingernails so I don't type like this: hoes mfy tuyoing (how's my typing)
     
  2. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Swype works well.
     
  3. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Bah, humbug.
     
  4. 4nsicdoc

    4nsicdoc Original Member

    The response might mimic that of the alien in Independence Day (the movie) when such a question was asked of it.
     
  5. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    Talk about a day late and a dollar short...so do you base everything in your life on science fiction? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
     
  6. 4nsicdoc

    4nsicdoc Original Member

    And like the chosen avatar, the essence is a rich creamy filling of empty calories.
     
  7. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    Any time you want some of that cream, just ask. ;)
     
  8. 4nsicdoc

    4nsicdoc Original Member

    Isn't that all we ever get, even without asking? Mindless expositions from a pretend constitutional expert, "facts" from a make-believe physicist and so on?
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  9. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    Boy, you really woke up with a hard-on, didn't you. What's your problem? :pumpkin:
     
  10. 4nsicdoc

    4nsicdoc Original Member

    The truth hurts, doesn't it?
     
  11. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    Look, cupcake, I'm just posting comments here. You're the one who's taking this to a personal level. If you want to talk about airport security policies and have a friendly debate over it, I'm your man. If you want to personally attack me, you can sit in the corner and jerk yourself off to your heart's content. I'll just leave you alone.

    Have fun with yourself.
     
  12. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    Alrighty then. Sorry to break up this circle jerk, but the topic at hand is:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Article. I.
    Section. 1.
    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives...

    ...and while I defend your right to hold a circle jerk, I respectfully suggest that you might want to clarify the nature of your communication by opening a new topic and leaving this thread to those who are interested in the U.S. Constitution.

    After all, you don't see me going over to the "Blue Boy" blog to sprinkle excerpts from America's founding documents between other people's homo-erotic posts, now do you?
     
  13. 4nsicdoc

    4nsicdoc Original Member

    OK, Elizabeth, good call. But I would urge people not to spend all their time on the sparse but importnt words in the Constitution. Since our form of government is supposed to include the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the meaning, it is necessary to include those cases as part of the context. An extremely important case when discussing the "right to privacy" is Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case overturning Connecticut's 1879 ban against birth control measures, including condoms and IUDs. In that case, the Supremes (not the Diana Ross ones who were really hot in 1965, but the William O Douglas ones) for the first time found that the "penumbral emanations" from the 9th Amendment and other provisions guaranteed a "right to privacy." Griswold is the direct ancestor of Roe v. Wade.
    The case is at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=381&page=479.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  14. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    Defining the Supreme Court as the "final arbiter of meaning" has done as much harm as good lately, but I get your point. I bolded and high-lighted the words I did because you don't have to dig very deep into the Constitution to see why much of the abuse the TSA levies against citizens is illegal. The practice of pretending "policies" of federal agencies equate to or even supersede actual legislation is obviously unconstitutional. Our legislators are derelict in their duties when they allow the TSA to run wild. Judges aren't interpreting the Constitution when they pretend federal agencies' policies supersede actual legislation; they're dismantling the very checks and balances within the Constitution that provide our system of government with credibility.

    As for your point about citizens' rights to privacy, I agree. We have that right. We also have 4th amendment rights, and I don't want to see "privacy" substituted for "security in person and property against unreasonable searches and seizures."

    PS: Initially this article appears to be about everything but the TSA. The last six paragraphs are exclusively focused on the TSA. Read the entire thing, and you'll understand that it is about how the TSA fits into the broader schema of Administrative Law. Administrative Law is diametrically opposed to the Constitution, and is practiced against citizens to our severe detriment. We are crazy if we fail to resist.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/8715-administrative-law-the-second-set-of-books
     
    barbell, phoebepontiac and nachtnebel like this.
  15. 4nsicdoc

    4nsicdoc Original Member

    I agree that there should not be a substitution of privacy for 4th amendment rights. But that doesn't mean both should not be used as appropriate. When I was flying Skyraiders (cavernous cockpit)in Asia, as a survival weapon I used an M203 which was basically a grenade launcher (BIG Boom!) hung under an M-16 (Little Booms but a whole lot of them very fast.) I didn't substitute one for the other but had both in the arsenal. The 4th Amendment, besides being abused daily by the TSA, has fallen a little out of favor. After all doesn't it protect criminals? "I don't have anything to hide, so....." The 9th Amendment from which emanates the right to privacy, on the other hand, has become the darling child of the normally "tough on crime" group, even including the Tea Party. So framing an argument in terms of the Ninth Amendment makes it more universally appealing. If it keeps the cretinous perverts' hands out of our pants, who cares from where the right comes?
     
  16. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    Yes, as I said at the top of the thread, privacy is not the issue at all. No matter who you are, pole dancer or nun, you have the right not to have the government (or anyone else, for that matter) lay hands on your body without a damn good reason. The Fourth Amendment defines, broadly, those reasons. And it does not matter if you are beautiful or ugly -- "Law professor" Estrich, whom I quoted at the top of the thread, believes that ugly, old, or out-of-shape folks (that's me she's talking about, BTW) don't have any rights to object to the TSA regime. But there's a famous saying by the elder Pitt from the 1760s or thereabouts, that Estrich seems to either forgotten or never known about:
     
  17. 4nsicdoc

    4nsicdoc Original Member

    Susan Estrich probably also believes that the laws against rape are only to protect the pretty girls. Considering how she looks and sounds, a TSA rubdown is probably the only attention her genitals get.
     

Share This Page