Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Nov 17, 2010.
The main flaw of the article is that the risk of terrorist attack does not inhere in the passengers on the airplane. A hijacked airliner can result in major loss of life and tremendous economic damage to parties completely uninvolved in the transaction.
It is a matter of public safety, not merely of an economic transaction.
That being said, I think the new methods are ridiculous and unreasonable, but I think there is justification to have some level of regulation in this matter.
Just don't fly.
Schedule your next trip on Amtrak
Flying is not the issue. It is just the issue people are focusing on right now so the federal government violating the U.S. constitution is being discussed in that context, but this applies to any place, any time, such as buses and trains. The TSA is a federal government agency. The U.S. constitution per the 4th amendment forbids the TSA from using the full body scanner and the groping body searches without a proper warrant.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" - Patrick Henry
As asked in a different thread: How does that work for the folks that live in, say, Hawaii?
Work on your backstroke:smilewinkgrin:
So the terrorists could all choose to fly on the airline with the least security.
Ok - other passengers would be accepting that risk.
But what about the people on the ground in the target areas where the terrorists choose to crash the planes?
We don't get the option of choosing.
My question was what is the alternative security method for stopping a terrorist from boarding a plane with the intent to do harm?
Not how can I get on a plane without having to go through security myself.
Started separate thread.
No - but it has not been determined by the courts that the Constitution is being violated.
What's your point?
And what is your alternative to the current security measures to keep terrorists off planes?
Read the article for alternatives to Big Government.
Which article? The OP article?
It doesn't talk about keeping terrorist off planes.
So you are saying, targus, that the innovators in the free market cannot come up with an alternative that does not violate the U.S. constititution?
I hope you understand that no idea will be fail safe.
And, in the case that no innovator can come up with a plan that does not violate the U.S. constitution then we should either amend the U.S. constitution to allow the intrusive methods to be conducted by the government or else we should simply follow the constitution and rely on the God's providencial protection.
But let's not violate the U.S. constitution and say "Well, in this case it's okay to do so", because any violation of the U.S. constitution is then fair game to implement by the federal government.
I am saying that your article and you have both failed to offer alternative security measures to keep terrorists off airplanes.
Anyone can complain about something - but few can offer a solution.
What's your alternative that would not violate the U.S. constitution?
Or are you okay with violating the U.S. constitution on this issue?
It does offer alternatives to having the federal government break the bonds placed on it by the U.S. constitution which is what this discussion is about.
If the government interference is removed, then free market alternatives will have the chance to prove their worth and the U.S. constitution wil not be violated by allowing the government to overstep its limits.
Can you point to a court ruling that has agreed that scans and pat downs at airport security are a violation of the Constitution?
The constitution is quite clear on this. I couldn't care less how a court rules on it. I don't care what Leviathan says on a whole host of issues. The U.S. constutution is not a complicated document. It has been made complicated over the years because those in power try to twist to it to their own ends.
By our system of government it is the courts that decide the constitutionality of things.
How would it work if everyone just decided for themselves what is and what is not constitutional?
As it stands at this point and time the airport screenings have not been found to be unconstitutional.