• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?


  • Total voters
    59
I hate to belabor this point, BUT. You have no inherent right to fly. Even if you own the airplane, own the airport and employ the pilot, you are still subject to regulation. Don't follow those regulations, and you don't fly. In the case of commercial airlines, your "right to fly" is predicated on an airline selling you a ticket, which it may or may not do at its discretion provided it does not discriminate on the basis of anything covered in the Civil Rights Act and as states have further expanded that Act; it's predicated on you following the rules and regs of the airport; it's predicated on you following inflight rules, and, now, the regulations of the TSA. Follow those rules, and you're good to go. Don't follow them? Don't fly.
No, flying is NOT a right. Airlines are not required to allow you on their planes if they don't want to.

TRAVEL, is a right. HOW you travel is a choice or privilege.
So how exactly do you Constitutional scholars interpret the Ninth Amendment? I'd love to hear you weigh in on it.
 
So what would you do if Congress passed a law saying you could no longer drive a car or use any sort of public transportation? Since you seem to think you have no such right, you'd just shrug and accept it, making smartass remarks to the non-subservient who dare to complain along the way?

PUBLIC transportation, if available, is a right.
PRIVATE transportation, such as your own car, is a right.

PRIVATE transportation, such as an airplane you do not own, is NOT a right.

The 9th amendment does not guarantee me the right to fly on any plane I want, if the owner of that plane doesn't want me there. It is not illegal nor un constitutional for me, as an airline, to refuse to allow you to board my plane, unless you're a member of a 'protected' class.

Your 9th amendment argument sucks.
 
So how exactly do you Constitutional scholars interpret the Ninth Amendment? I'd love to hear you weigh in on it.

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

I'd interpret it this way:

The Ninth Amendment shall not be construed to grant or retain every single thing a person could possibly do in this world as being "their right."

I
 
PUBLIC transportation, if available, is a right.
PRIVATE transportation, such as your own car, is a right.

PRIVATE transportation, such as an airplane you do not own, is NOT a right.

The 9th amendment does not guarantee me the right to fly on any plane I want, if the owner of that plane doesn't want me there. It is not illegal nor un constitutional for me, as an airline, to refuse to allow you to board my plane, unless you're a member of a 'protected' class.

Your 9th amendment argument sucks.
I'd much rather you explain in DETAIL why the 9th amendment guarantees you the right to fly on my Cesna if I don't want you there.
I never said anything about the Ninth Amendment applying to private property.

Your reading skills suck.
 
Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
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.
Funny... doesn't say HOW you have a right to travel, or that you have a right to travel in a particular manner or by a particular means of conveyance... just that you have the right to travel.
 
I never said anything about the Ninth Amendment applying to private property.

Your reading skills suck.

Coronado, all airplanes are private property. And as to those that are owned by government, well, I'd like ta' see ya' get a ticket to ride on one of those.
 
Coronado, all airplanes are private property. And as to those that are owned by government, well, I'd like ta' see ya' get a ticket to ride on one of those.
In the context of the TSA argument, it is the state infringing upon the right in question, not the private entity.
 
I never said anything about the Ninth Amendment applying to private property.
Coronado said:
Actually yes, you do have a right to fly in an airplane:Now please try another argument. Thanks.
Your reading skills suck.
As do your posting skills.

I assume your quote here meant the public service airlines, right? Oh wait... there IS no 'public service' airline, is there. Just private airlines. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
 
As do your posting skills.

I assume your quote here meant the public service airlines, right? Oh wait... there IS no 'public service' airline, is there. Just private airlines. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Asked and answered. Scroll up.
 
Do you understand the difference between positive law and natural rights?

Instead of just throwing that out on the table, how 'bout you explain how positive law and natural rights apply to this argument? This isn't a quiz show.
 
Instead of just throwing that out on the table, how 'bout you explain how positive law and natural rights apply to this argument? This isn't a quiz show.
Positive law = government creates rights. Natural law = humans are born with rights.

This is pretty basic stuff ...
 
Tell you what Cor... next time the TSA fails to stop a shoe or underwear bomber on your flight & they go BOOM... come back and tell us how it was their right to fly unimpeded by the TSA.
 
Positive law = government creates rights. Natural law = humans are born with rights.

This is pretty basic stuff ...

And this relates to the subject at hand.....how? That you have a natural right to fly on a private airline without regard to regulations? You can't even do that if you own your own plane. This argument is getting ridiculous. When you are trying to claim that flying on an airplane is your inalienable right, well.....pfft.

You must be a bugger at a traffic stop. After all, it's your inalienable right to drive too, right?
 
Tell you what Cor... next time the TSA fails to stop a shoe or underwear bomber on your flight & they go BOOM... come back and tell us how it was their right to fly unimpeded by the TSA.
So you have nothing further to contribute. Thanks.
 
And this relates to the subject at hand.....how? That you have a natural right to fly on a private airline without regard to regulations? You can't even do that if you own your own plane. This argument is getting ridiculous. When you are trying to claim that flying on an airplane is your inalienable right, well.....pfft.

You must be a bugger at a traffic stop. After all, it's your inalienable right to drive too, right?
I don't know why I bother trying to explain anything to you. All that ever happens is you end up totally misinterpreting what I've said, go off on some idiotic tangeant based upon that, then end up with some smartass remark. It's a total waste of effort to hold on any sort of conversation with you that would actually require any sort of neural activity on your part, I guess.

Oh well. Carry on without me, dearie.
 
Honestly the metal detectors and a non invasive pat downs are all that is needed. Although, when I fly home Monday I may ask for an invasive pat down so I can say some one else touched my junk and not be lying.
 
How does it harm you in any way to have to go through a scanner? How is it a violation of rights to have a professional search you for dangerous materials in a day and age where our safety is threatened? There is nothing wrong with full body scanners and searches.

Because the full body scanners give you a very unhealthy dose of radiation that is why pilots are now refusing to go through them, and I wouldnt call feeling up someones "groan" or breasts a professional search. The reason they do the pat downs is to scare the public into using the body scanners.
 
Last edited:
PUBLIC transportation, if available, is a right.
PRIVATE transportation, such as your own car, is a right.

PRIVATE transportation, such as an airplane you do not own, is NOT a right.

The 9th amendment does not guarantee me the right to fly on any plane I want, if the owner of that plane doesn't want me there. It is not illegal nor un constitutional for me, as an airline, to refuse to allow you to board my plane, unless you're a member of a 'protected' class.

Your 9th amendment argument sucks.

It's not the airlines that have nudie booths at the airport. It's the federal government.
 
I don't know why I bother trying to explain anything to you. All that ever happens is you end up totally misinterpreting what I've said, go off on some idiotic tangeant based upon that, then end up with some smartass remark. It's a total waste of effort to hold on any sort of conversation with you that would actually require any sort of neural activity on your part, I guess.

Oh well. Carry on without me, dearie.

:rofl

....................
 
The El Al airport procedures and in-flight safeguards work for me.

In addition, all El Al passenger aircraft are equipped with an anti-missile system.

They have two guards onboard armed with machine guns. El Al doesn't play. :thumbs:
 
Back
Top Bottom