Like I said... Civility...

I salute you... :D

Michale

That's a bit strong. Let's just say we disagree on a number of issues, and take it from there, shall we?

I can't stand most of what Balthasar stands for and believes in and he probably hates the ground I walk on..

But we both can rise above that, be civil to each other and give credit and acknowledgement when it is due..

THAT, my friends, is what makes a community...

Many have seem to forgotten that in the last few months... Myself included...

I'm just sayin'....

Michale

And I thank you for the compliment, Michale.

And I thank you for the acknowledgement..

:D

Michale

I'd like to also thank everyone who had nothing to do with this extraordinary movie that isn't a movie, especially all of those who haven't reached out to me, and to all of the friends and relatives who have no idea at all how much they mean to me. To the studio, producers, director, cast and crew, you are all truly imaginary. Thank you. Thank you so much.

I disagree with Balthasar on just about EVERYTHING..

Yet, I can rise above that and compliment him when he makes a good post....

That's the way things USED to be around here..

I miss that...

Once we get past this current POTUS election, I am hoping we can get back to that...

Per chance, to dream....

Michale

Regardless of the point you were trying to make... (remember, just a knuckle-dragging ground pounder here).... I have to say...

THAT was frakin' awesome!!!! :D

Well done, sir... Well done.... :D

Michale

As CW points out, denying someone their constitutional rights without due process is as bad as it gets... I whole-heartedly concur with that sentiment..

On the OTHER hand, due to my experience in the field, I know that people are put on the TWL, more often than not, for very good and sound reason...

As I mentioned to Listen above, when it comes to the safety and security of Americans, I would have to err on the side of caution and vote to DENY gun ownership to those on the Terrorist Watch List...

Public safety trumps everything else, in this case...

I am not happy about my choice, but the logic is clear...

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... Or the one."
-Captain Spock

Michale

Anyway, I was interested in determining if the US Constitution specifically creates a right of travel. So, I found a site that searches the full text of the Constitution.

The word "travel" does not show up in a word search, but maybe travel is implied as a particular sort of liberty.

The word Liberty appears 3 times, somewhat vaguely as: “secure the blessings of liberty” but twice in the context of due process, “nore be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process” and “nore shall any State deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process.”

Maybe travel is a “right” rather than a liberty
The plural “Rights” appears once:
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” That’s important….the Constitution specifically says it does not enumerate all rights. But,nor does it say who does.

But wait, the singular form Right appears multiple times - most critically with respect to travel as “right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.” Assembly implies movement, so people have the right to move, which implies travel, no limits specified as to where or what distance. However, it does tie a specific function to the right to travel, namely to petition the Government. No mention of work, vacation etc, but bear in mind that not all rights are specifically enumerated. This getting rather Wonderlandish, but keep moving or we'll be late...(as in the late Dent Arthur Dent). (See Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy series).

Assemble appears in five contexts:

Four times in reference to congress, but most people aren’t members of congress. Assemble also appear as “right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition Government for redress of grievance” as already mentioned above.

My literal reading the Constitution says you have an explicit right to assemble to redress grievances by the Government. It does not explicitly say you have the right to assemble for any other purpose, but leaves the possibility open. As long as one method of assembly is open, say walking, is that sufficient? The Constitution is silent on this, but then again, it explicitly says that it does not bother to enumerate all rights you have.

It seems that some rights may be quite flexible, to be determined by legislation subject to review by the courts, up the chain to the Supreme Court. Which is where we are at present, in a legal muddle heading towards the Supreme Court.

I think the Founders had a love for 1) wiggle room and 2) vigorous debate.

CW - Uhh.. can clean up the mess I made of your nice site?

Because "travel" is not a constitutional right in the context it is being used...

The constitutional right that is being espoused is freedom of movement.. The freedom to go where one pleases without physical restraint unless by due process..

That "travel" is what is a constitutional right..

When "travel" is equated with air travel, all of the sudden it appears that people have a constitutional right to fly to Tahiti....

No...

Being allowed to fly in an airplane is NOT a constitutional right..

Being allowed to ride an Amtrak is NOT a constitutional right..

Being allowed to drive in a car is NOT a constitutional right..

Being able to own a gun *IS* a constitutional right.. If that right is denied, it must follow due process or common sense..

Unfortunately, the Left Wingery has very little interest in the former and NO APPARENT access to the latter...

Michale

What good is that secret when the person will learn that they are on the list the first time they attempt to travel by plane?

Because once the terrorist attempts to board an aircraft, the dynamic changes..

THEN the safety of the airline passengers trumps intelligence gathering and ways and means...

Usually...

Michale

Liberty appears 3 times, twice in the context of due process.

Rights appears once:

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

Assemble appears in five contexts

Those are not documented words of Lincoln.

Siighhhhh Thank you for proving my EXACT point I just made here:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/06/20/guest-author-donald-trump-the-apprentice-demagogue/#comment-77580

Michale

A VERY good reason for that...

It would also divulge critical intelligence ways and means that would allow terrorists to alter their way of doing things which would make it harder to detect them..

Yeah, that sounds really good up until you look and see that it makes no sense!
What good is that secret when the person will learn that they are on the list the first time they attempt to travel by plane? If you are wanting to catch them doing something they shouldn't be doing, you don't warn them about it EVER! And just the knowledge that such a list exists would cause any terrorist with half a brain to know that they will have to travel under an assumed identity. You divulge everything you claim keeping the identity of persons on that list secretive somehow protects the moment the person learns that they are on the list! So what? The list is just an exercise in futility then?

http://context.montpelier.org/document/175?gclid=CMmylJrgu80CFQkNaQodjIUFhw

The word "travel" does not show up in a word search.

Liberty appears

Those are not documented words of Lincoln.

Maybe they are uttered by the robot Lincoln at Disney theme parks (it's been I while since I visited one) but not THE President Lincoln.

Lincoln did write:

"Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated."

In 1861, in response to a Writ of Habeus Corpus issued by Chief Justice Roger B.Taney on behalf of militiaman John Merryman, in prison for burning bridges on the order of his commander, the Governor of Maryland.

https://www.nps.gov/fomc/learn/historyculture/the-writ-of-habeus-corpus.htm

Lincoln is basically asking a rhetorical legal question. How far can I go in putting sown an insurrection.

Judge Richard A. Posner’s wrote a book

"Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency." It defended the Dubya's bending of the Constitution following 911.

Posner does not exactly have the historical clout of Abe Lincoln.

Bending the Constitution, bending of history.

To give unfettered air travel to anyone who wants it would invite disaster...

Apologies (BLUE MOON!!!)...

I forgot to attribute that quote..

"The US CONSTITUTION is not a suicide pact"
-Abraham Lincoln

Michale

I also think that the background check loophole is the bigger thing to close.

There is no background check loophole.. It's a myth..

However, from a constitutional perspective, the phrase "compelling government interest" does override anything when the SC decides it does.

Good point.. Kudos..

Michale

The Patriot Act gave our government far too much ability to violate our rights as citizens, all in the name of "public safety". The "Suspected Terrorist List" is a secret list

There is a reason for that...

A VERY good reason for that...

To divulge who is on the list would give people who ARE guilty a heads up...

It would also divulge critical intelligence ways and means that would allow terrorists to alter their way of doing things which would make it harder to detect them..

Secrets are a fact of life...

A nation that has no secrets, a nation that allows everyone to know everything is a nation that endures, at best, just a single day..

Michale

Yes, they are.. Indeed...

As I mentioned before when this subject came up, no one is denying anyone's right to travel...

What is being denied is the right to travel by the most convenient conveyance...

While your SCOTUS cites are numerous and impressive, one cite is ignored..

"The US CONSTITUTION is not a suicide pact"

To give unfettered air travel to anyone who wants it would invite disaster...

Michale

Unbelievable.

I completely agree that the "blacklist" concept is bad.

I also think that the background check loophole is the bigger thing to close. That should have been the real debate. Honest, hard working gun dealers across the US are harmed by this loophole, but nothing is being done about it.

However, from a constitutional perspective, the phrase "compelling government interest" does override anything when the SC decides it does.

In fact, that was used to conclude that the gov't can ban religious ceremonies that use drugs (peyote) and that our taxes can be used for wars (Quakers). Both, overcoming the first amendment's religious freedom clause. For what it's worth, conservatives applauded both decisions.