It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Judge Rules No-Fly List Unconstitutional

page: 2
32
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Gryphon66

Right, but the onus should be on the FAA and the government to PROVE that a citizen is an absolute threat to the safety of an aircraft. That's where the arbitrary creation of lists fails the rights that I noted and to which you responded. If something has been deemed a right multiple times throughout history, there should be more involved in denying someone the said right than just creating lists on a whim.



I do not disagree with your position in the slightest regarding due process. I believe strongly that the Terrorist Watchlist should be brought into immediate compliance with Constitutional due process.

However, the United States does have sovereignty over the airspace and the use of it, and the recognized right in the law we both referenced is a public right with restrictions.

The right of travel interstate and through the airspace are recognized, however, the laws you cited do not prescribe the government's regulation of either. IMHO.
edit on 29-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: yeahright

Yah but the linked article is from 2014...



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Great news!

Perhaps the do-nothing Republican Congress will be forced to finally repair this flawed remnant of the Bush Administration.

Should have been done years ago; should have been done right (in light of Constitutional due process) from the beginning.


And to think there G.

That Yes WE Can congress from 2008 to 2010 did NOTHING.

Was there a point beyond the political trolling?



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




I guess you don't include yourself in the group of those able to see "through the partisan rhetoric"?


Interesting.




Perhaps the do-nothing Republican Congress will be forced to finally repair this flawed remnant of the Bush Administration.


I guess this PARTISAN rhetoric is ok!



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66




I guess you don't include yourself in the group of those able to see "through the partisan rhetoric"?


Interesting.




Perhaps the do-nothing Republican Congress will be forced to finally repair this flawed remnant of the Bush Administration.


I guess this PARTISAN rhetoric is ok!


Did I claim that I'm not partisan?

Oh, and, how you doing Mr. Teapot ... the Kettle household is just fine today.

PS: Not going to derail this topic with you.


edit on 29-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Too late it was already derailed.

Funny part here is G ?

No Fly,No Buy was created a long time ago in the Brady Handgun Prevention Act.

The denial of constitutional protected RIGHTS without Due Process.

Funny the SAME people that created that absolute SNIP just got shot down.


edit on 29-6-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

No Fly,No Buy was created a long time ago in the Brady Handgun Prevention Act.



Prove it.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I concede that point, but my broadest point I'm trying to make is that rights should not be restricted on a just-in-case basis, so the right to freely travel within the U.S. (which includes air travel) should absolutely not be denied because someone might be but we don't know for sure but needs to be messed with anyhow a bad guy with evil intent.

I think that we're flipping the same coin, just arguing different sides of it.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Nope, I'm pretty much arguing the same point you are, but from a different basis of law/rights.

Due process of law as outlined in Amendments 5 and 14 settle the matter preemptively.

It's not the "what" that is restricted but the "how."



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
How did this degenerate into partisan bickering? This is a victory for 'We the People' regardless of your political association. I see this as a victory for us and for the Constitution. Only a complete fool would not see this as a victory for justice.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I agree with Metallicus, this is a good move for everyone.

edit on 29pmWed, 29 Jun 2016 13:35:07 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Gryphon66

Right, but the onus should be on the FAA and the government to PROVE that a citizen is an absolute threat to the safety of an aircraft.


This is what a lot of people don't really understand. The government only has to prove, if you know.

Think about what a "law" is.

A Law gives citizens the right to challenge.

But, the law doesn't implement itself.

It's just words on a piece of paper.

Someone has to interpret the law, and accuse someone else of violating it.

The whole idea behind "secrecy" is that you can avoid the law entirely.

The rich keep their overseas assets secret, to avoid the tax laws.

The government keep their operations secret, to avoid the constitutional laws.

As long as nobody accuses you of doing something wrong, you haven't.

Each citizen is responsible for interpreting the constitution himself, and determining if his rights have been violated, and then to initiate actions to bring those violators to justice.

As long as the citizens do nothing, the government has done nothing wrong.

Silence is approval.


The Constitution is your hammer, but you the citizen have to hit the right nail with it.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It seems he isn't the only one who cherry picked.

"However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883)".[2][3]

This is where we address the Tenth Amendment.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdChillin
a reply to: Gryphon66

It seems he isn't the only one who cherry picked.

"However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883)".[2][3]

This is where we address the Tenth Amendment.


Wiki citation

The reference was to a specific law which was quoted in part, i.e. "cherry picked."

(What's your citation? Wiki? Might want to add that so that it doesn't look like you're plagiarizing.)

Further, those laws address interstate travel, i.e. to travel from one state to another.

Travel through United States airspace, and the jurisdiction thereof, use of the nation's airlines, is covered under the law that SlapMonkey stated.

States powers come into play with the requirements for driver's licenses, car licenses and so forth.

The MODE of travel is not guaranteed by any SCOTUS decision.

No, it's not a "Tenth Amendment" question by any means.

EDIT: However, speaking of actual cherry picking ... perhaps you didn't read your whole article?



There are, however, a number of other safety and homeland-security-related issues covered in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 449 and Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations in the 1540 series that could impede movement, such as a passenger's name appearing on a "no fly" or "selectee" list.

edit on 29-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Great news!

Perhaps the do-nothing Republican Congress will be forced to finally repair this flawed remnant of the Bush Administration.

Should have been done years ago; should have been done right (in light of Constitutional due process) from the beginning.


You're right, but the Dems could have fixed it as well so it apparently doesn't bother them either. You would think after Kennedy himself was placed on the list and all he went through to get his name removed, it would have been handled at that time and efforts would have been applied to put about a more effective and fair policy. But even with one of their own unfairly discriminated against, not one thing changed.
edit on 29-6-2016 by StoutBroux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

I agree with you, the Democrats squandered their two to four years of power on the ACA debacle. I'm saddened to say that I agree with you, many Democrats apparently were willing to tow the authoritarian line over the Terror Watchlist. Further, Mr. Obama's Administration could have done more to bring the matter into focus in regard to civil liberties, rather than gun control.

The way the lists are handled now is very authoritarian, and, like it or not, those involved in governance are authoritarians first, Democrats and Republicans second.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

That is certainly the way I look at it.

If they're so dangerous, arrest 'em, put 'em on trial.

No fly lists, once courts really looked at it, had no chance. As it should be.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Better late then never.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I was just wondering that myself.

This ruling is great, and sets a presidence that will be hard to overturn higher up.

There should be total non-partisan celebration here folks.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Metallicus

I was just wondering that myself.

This ruling is great, and sets a presidence that will be hard to overturn higher up.

There should be total non-partisan celebration here folks.


Did you look at the actual wording of her decision?

If I read it correctly, it is directing the Federal Government to provide means of due process for the Plaintiffs (indeed a great thing).

I'm not sure it sets precedence on the Constitutional question though ...







 
32
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join