Florida teen detained by TSA for design on her purse

[1480]

As much as I am going to be flamed for this, you have no constitutional right to fly on a plane. It comes down to "private property" issues. My house my rules and in this case, federal laws and guidelines. If you want to fly on a plane anywhere in the world (you should see how they treat round eyes in Chinese airports) , you give up your 4th amendment right to search and seizure.

If you want to get into how the government should or should not regulate air travel is a completely different discussion.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by 1480

As much as I am going to be flamed for this

Shouldn't be any flaming because that is against the forum rules...good honest debate and I personally find this thread interesting.

The TSA may have overreacted but the individual may have been better advised to carry an item with a different logo considering the location.

Just my two cents.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by 1480

As much as I hope I am going to be flamed for this

Fixed.

you have no constitutional right to fly on a plane.

Ninth Amendment.

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

You have the right to do anything you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same.

It comes down to "private property" issues. My house my rules and in this case, federal laws and guidelines.

On the one hand, it's the airlines' house and rules. As a private concern they do have the right to refuse service to anyone, as the Constitution only applies to the Federal Government.

On the other hand, we make laws to protect ourselves from each other, and only the Federal Government is big enough to protect us all in this case. In these modern times something like TSA is, like law, taxes and government in general, is a necessary evil. That said, it is indeed necessary, and we all pay the price.

If you want to fly on a plane anywhere in the world (you should see how they treat round eyes in Chinese airports) , you give up your 4th amendment right to search and seizure.

Comparing experiences here with experiences elsewhere is, to my mind, is in this case irrelevant. Are you saying that we should be grateful that our intrusive system is not as bad as theirs? I am, but I shouldn't have to be.

Saying the girl should have known better is just like saying she shouldn't have dressed provocatively if she didn't want to be raped. While true, it's still commenting on something that shouldn't be. A one-minute examination of the purse would have told the officials everything they needed to know.

[1480]

[QUOTE=Sailor Steve;1799110]

Ninth Amendment.

You have the right to do anything you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same.

The Ninth Amendment bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, but does not bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution.[15] It is to that enumeration of powers that the courts have said we must look, in order to determine the extent of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment.[15]

United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947).

Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 776 n. 14 (2nd ed. 1998).

"It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.

Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 1991

"[T]he ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law. The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution."

So in my humble opinion, it is not a right.

On the one hand, it's the airlines' house and rules. As a private concern they do have the right to refuse service to anyone, as the Constitution only applies to the Federal Government.

On the other hand, we make laws to protect ourselves from each other, and only the Federal Government is big enough to protect us all in this case. In these modern times something like TSA is, like law, taxes and government in general, is a necessary evil. That said, it is indeed necessary, and we all pay the price.

We basically agree on this. Had the airlines been a private entity there would be no discussion here.

Comparing experiences here with experiences elsewhere is, to my mind, is in this case irrelevant. Are you saying that we should be grateful that our intrusive system is not as bad as theirs? I am, but I shouldn't have to be.

Actually, Bejing airport looks exactly like O'hare, just dimmer lighting. They have their own version of TSA but they go through if not exactly the same protocols than pretty much look cross trained with our TSA. And the reason why I mentioned it, was the three times I was searched after the initial screening. Must have been the Blackhawks jersey I had on

Saying the girl should have known better is just like saying she shouldn't have dressed provocatively if she didn't want to be raped. While true, it's still commenting on something that shouldn't be. A one-minute examination of the purse would have told the officials everything they needed to know.

Never liked that argument and it has no relevance to this particular incident. Rape is a crime of violence.

None of the rights enumerated in the Constitution are absolute either. Too many examples of case law that prove that. I'll PM them to you if you would like.

And Buna, you know I am terrible with semantics

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by 1480

The Ninth Amendment bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, but does not bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution.[15] It is to that enumeration of powers that the courts have said we must look, in order to determine the extent of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment.[15]

United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947).

Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 776 n. 14 (2nd ed. 1998).

"It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.

Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 1991

"[T]he ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law. The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution."

So in my humble opinion, it is not a right.

And that is a prime example of the court specifically ignoring the man who wrote the Bill Of Rights. James Madison "The Father of the Constitution", didn't want a Bill Of Rights at all, for the express reason that he believed that if he listed them some would inevitably be left out, and some lawyer down the road would say "They didn't mention that one, so it must not count." He believed that the Congressional and Executive powers listed could and would not be usurped, hence the Federal Government could never incroach on any of our rights, and that ALL rights belonged to the people, and none to the Government. He eventually let himself be persuaded by Jefferson, and by the fact that pretty much everybody else refused to sign if he didn't guarantee that he would include one.

Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

James Madison, Federalist #84

When he did give in, he did everything he could to prevent the government from intruding on unnamed rights.

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

James Madison, Draft submitted to Congress

It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.

James Madison, speech introducing the Bill Of Rights

My point is that it's true that the Government does indeed have the authority (granted by us - Government per se has no "rights" at all) to create an entity to protect its citizens. In this the NTA is no different than the police department - it's there for a reason. I also agree that the NTA and other Federal Agencies have the authority to prohibit the carrying of weapons, even fake or replica weapons, on an airliner. Where I disagree is that an purse with an embossed picture of a gun qualifies, especially when even a cursory look would show that it's obvious that her finger couldn't even fit inside the trigger guard.

Never liked that argument and it has no relevance to this particular incident. Rape is a crime of violence.

It was the first one that came to my head. But the point here isn't the crime, it's the implication that "She should have known better." My point is that she shouldn't have to know better.

None of the rights enumerated in the Constitution are absolute either. Too many examples of case law that prove that. I'll PM them to you if you would like.

You don't need to show me anything. As I often say, I read the Bill Of Rights as meaning one thing: I have the right to do anything I want, as long as I don't infringe anyone else's right to do exactly the same. Everything else springs from that concept.

[1480]

@ S S.

Understand where you are coming from, and agree with some of the things you present. But the fact is, the judiciary interprets what is written down, whether or not it was intended or not by the framers.

As to personal responsibility for one's own behavior, I believe if people policed themselves and used a little common sense, we would not need a nanny state.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by 1480

@ S S.

Understand where you are coming from, and agree with some of the things you present. But the fact is, the judiciary interprets what is written down, whether or not it was intended or not by the framers.

That is very true, and unlike some others who deride that, I also understand and accept it while still disagreeing. I'm a huge fan of John Marshall and the amazing way he outfoxed Jefferson to bring about that state of affairs.

As to personal responsibility for one's own behavior, I believe if people policed themselves and used a little common sense, we would not need a nanny state.

I do agree with both your points, and where I disagree, well, there's room for that as well. It's part of what freedom is about.

[1480]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

When one looks out for their own self interest, one works a lot harder.

More debate is needed, otherwise we will be chanting the following:

Oranges and lemons,
Say the bells of St. Clement's.

You owe me five farthings,
Say the bells of St. Martin's.

When will you pay me?
Say the bells of Old Bailey.

When I grow rich,
Say the bells of Shoreditch.

When will that be?
Say the bells of Stepney.

I do not know,
Says the great bell of Bow.

Here comes a candle to light you to bed,
And here comes a chopper to chop off your head