• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Rand Paul detained by the T.S.A.

M

mont974x4

New Member
Rand wanted to rescan and would not submit to the invasive (and questionably legal) private search. As well he should have. Most people would get a "please double check your pockets and place anything in this basket, step back, and step through the scanner again please". The TSA has gone of the reservation far to many times.
 
M

mont974x4

New Member
BTW, you are right, we do not have a right to fly. However, we do have the right to move freely about this nation unmolested.
 
M

mont974x4

New Member
He was willing to be screened and desired only to be treated like anyone else.

Of course, this would not be such a hot issue if political correctness was not more important than actual security.
 
M

mandym

New Member
mont974x4 said:
He was willing to be screened and desired only to be treated like anyone else.

Of course, this would not be such a hot issue if political correctness was not more important than actual security.
Click to expand...

Not sure how he was not treated like everyone else or political correctness even comes into play.
 
M

mont974x4

New Member
freeatlast said:
Why do you believe we do not have the right to fly? Where do you get that from?
Click to expand...

Because it is not actually guaranteed in any of our founding documents. The right move about the nation is, but nothing guarantees any specific method or mode of transportation.
 
M

mont974x4

New Member
mandym said:
Not sure how he was not treated like everyone else or political correctness even comes into play.
Click to expand...

The norm would be to rescan, or maybe use a wand. The jump to pat down, and detention, was singling him out.

Political correctness makes the TSA search granny but keeps them from doing their real job....threat identification, which involves profiling.
 
M

mont974x4

New Member
freeatlast said:
Where is it stated we can move about?
Click to expand...

The Right To Travel

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.


http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel


A search will find a lot of case law setting precedent on this...if you are so inclined.
 
M

mandym

New Member
mont974x4 said:
The norm would be to rescan, or maybe use a wand. The jump to pat down, and detention, was singling him out.

Political correctness makes the TSA search granny but keeps them from doing their real job....threat identification, which involves profiling.
Click to expand...

I have been taken aside and patted won at more than one airports. It is not anything out of the norm.
 
J.D.

J.D.

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
mont974x4 said:
The Right To Travel

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.


http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel


A search will find a lot of case law setting precedent on this...if you are so inclined.
Click to expand...
I believe I have the right to fly without unwarranted search and seizure, and I also believe that I have the right to drive without unwarranted search and seizure. While some complain that driving licenses are unconstitutional, that's not what gets under my skin. Its police check points and road blocks that gets me riled. I've never understood how the possibility of nabbing one or two drunk drivers can justify stopping every vehicle on the highway. One time they were stopping every single car coming out of an ALLISON KRAUSS concert. It took an hour and half to get pass the road block. There were no arrests. The official statement from the state police headquarters is that the purpose of the roadblock was "ensure the safety of motorists". That's nothing but NannyGov Fascism. When the reporter asked the head of the state police about the fact that there were no arrests and the road block caused a major traffic jam on a major thoroughfare, he just said that in the future they would find "more strategic locations in which to operate their "safe driving interviews". This was in Pennsylvania about 10 years ago.

The unfortunate lesson is that in this day we live in, the police, or the TSA, feel uninhibited in violating the constitution's prohibition against unlawful and unwarranted search and seizure. How can we get our rights back? Not by electing big-government-is-good-if-we're-running-it Republicans. Not if we keep letting corporate fascists like Bill Kristol tell us who we're allowed to vote for. Not as long as we keep up the wicked two-party (which is really one party) system.

Maybe we need to follow Rand's example and just stand up to the little dictators.
 
F

freeatlast

New Member
mont974x4 said:
The Right To Travel

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.


http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel


A search will find a lot of case law setting precedent on this...if you are so inclined.
Click to expand...

The exact same thing applies to flying.
 
R

Ruiz

New Member
I can't believe people actually are saying that there is no due process for private citizens when boarding an airplane. Probable cause is thrown out due to government hysteria.

These liberal big government Republicans on this board would rather give up the Constitution and Freedom than undo Big Government.

Our Constitution says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say, "except for an airplane." It says for everything. Those who want to limit certain activities... well then limit driving, limit the use of mopeds... etc.. The Constitution doesn't limit anyone except government from wrongful search and seizures... no matter the method I am using. I have rights... the Government does not.

Rand and I have rights and they have no right to improper searching of my person without probable cause or a warrant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top