I don't think a pat down is an unreasonable General Welfare security measure before boarding an aircraft. I've never been "raped" by one but maybe @cjm can elaborate on that since he opts out every time. I'm not aware of any finger scans being required of all passengers as a condition of flying. Do you have info on that?
That's the difference I guess. I think some reasonable security measures to ensure one person can't kill 300 others with one solitary action are reasonably acceptable under General Welfare. I'm as constitutionally minded as anyone can be but never felt that was an over-reach, especially since the plane itself is private property. Yes, it has morphed from airlines providing the security service for their property over to TSA and that's bad in general because big govt but pat downs and metal detectors were happening regardless of whether it was private security or the feds doing it.I was "wrong" about the nudie scanner. BUT YOU ARE WRONG AS HELL ABOUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS! Nothing in the Bill Of Rights suggests that as long as you are given some choice about how your rights are violated that they are somehow not violated.
Or just decline to appear as the physical surety of the ALL CAPS NAME by filing official notice, but that's for a different thread.Right to a trial by jury? Well you can either plead guilty or face a military tribunal. There you go.
Freedom of association (how can you associate if travel is restricted?) and ironically, the Commerce Clause, plus courts have always upheld that freedom of movement is a guaranteed right.You have an "alternative" so your "rights" were not violated. The right to travel isn't even listed in the Bill Of Rights. That's why there is a 9th and 10th amendment. A refresher for you.
Even some outfit named Bloomberg Law (the Bloomberg?) recognizes it.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law...of-movement-44
No one said exercising rights would always be easy. In fact, the Founders warned that eventually it wouldn't be. .....if you can keep it......Back to the actual subject at hand. I'm sure there will be "alternatives" and "exceptions" to H.R.4980, but they will be so bad that most people will be like "I might as well just take the damn vaccine." They didn't do "alternatives" because to the rapescans because they thought that was what was needed to pass constitutional muster. They did the alternatives because they knew gullible people would say to themselves "This isn't so bad...because I have alternatives."
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us