TSA mess and the police

[JLTraveling]

You have tackled this issue from every possible angle, only one of which being the constitutionality. It is natural for me to believe that you have other reasons to dislike this law and I find it hard to believe otherwise.

And not one of those angles has been my own personal preference. Yet you claimed that I simply "dislike" the procedures. I believe that there are numerous problems with this issue, but they all amount to the same thing--inappropriate, unconstitutional intrusions into essential liberties. If the policies are found unconstitutional, then it really doesn't matter if one person reacts badly due to autism, and another due to previous sexual assault, and yet a third due to a phobia of being touched. All of my points are different sides to the same basic coin.

 

[DMRick]

I rarely worry about what airport security is going to be like and when it's time for me to travel my number one thought is how can I get through security quickly.

You sound like my son. He came to the US to LA, via NYC. He said on the way back, in CA, he was offered a choice of the regular scan or a full body scan. The line was shorter for the full scan, so that's what he picked LOL! He's going to CA (from NYC) Tuesday for a few days again for work, so I can't wait to see if they still offer him a choice on the way home.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

... All of my points are different sides to the same basic coin.

Fair enough.

 

[bicker]

That is what I wanted to know - this really isn't about whether or not it is constitutional to you. You simply don't like it. Fair enough.

Which is what LuvOrlando said early in the thread, something that I made a point of expressing support for her doing so, etc.

If all critics really cared about whether it was Constitutional or not, then they would have just filed suit ... not made a big stink about this in the media, to foster unreasonable fear, uncertainty and doubt -- they wouldn't have tried to try this "Constitutional" case in the court of public opinion, if their interest was solely to try this case in courts of law.

 

[bicker]

I can also believe that an issue is fundamentally unconstitutional, regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court agrees with me.

People can believe in whatever they want - the tooth fairy, for that matter. The word "constitutional" means something specific, and specifically means that which the Supreme Court holds to be the case. You are again confusing personal preference with something having to do with governance of the nation.

 

[SaraJayne]

DH flew this morning and said security was no different than his last flight a couple months ago.

But he forgot to take off his belt and walked through the metal detector. No one (not even the metal detector) caught it.

 

[JLTraveling]

People can believe in whatever they want - the tooth fairy, for that matter. The word "constitutional" means something specific, and specifically means that which the Supreme Court holds to be the case. You are again confusing personal preference with something having to do with governance of the nation.

Incorrect. The Supreme Court is the governmental body charged with interpreting the Constitution at any given time. But as Supreme Court justices change, so does that interpretation. Therefore, something deemed "constitutional" by one makeup of the Supreme Court may be stricken down by another set of justices serving on the Supreme Court...hence the reasoning that Roe v. Wade hangs in the balance periodically and people on both sides hold their breath when a new justice is appointed.

However, I agree that the Supreme Court has ultimate authority to determine constitutionality at any given time. That's why I said I would abide by a Supreme Court ruling on this. I do, however, reserve the right to work lawfully and peaceably towards a change in the balance of power in the Supreme Court should I no longer agree that the current makeup reflects an accurate interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.

At the moment, though, it's all an academic argument. The Supreme Court has not, in fact, ruled on this specific issue. There's a great deal of prior legal precedent to suggest that this particular Supreme Court will rule this issue unconstitutional. I eagerly await that court test, something that I would not do if my position was based on fear.

 

[kaytieeldr]

But regardless, OceanAnnie's point below is extraordinarily relevant.

I'm not sure how. You seem to be skipping over a vital phrase in that post:

It's already been in the news that broadening the scope of these measures (to include other modes of transportation) is being considered.

The current procedure is just barely a blip at domestic airports now - not that anyone could tell, given the media attention to the few; can't see anything being expanded beyond airports any time soon.

And that's the slippery slope I've been talking about since day 1, and why I feel that the comparisons to Nazi Germany are particularly relevant here.

Dammit I wish you would STOP THAT. But since you won't shut up with your comparison, invalid as it is, at the risk of delving into the dreaded political conversation: We have a representative government. If you don't like the way your town, city, state, or country is being run, vote with your vote. In the meantime, contact your elected officials with valid suggestions for change. Don't whine that your freedom is being eroded, or fall for the media's sobriquet of nude-o-scopes, or claim that you were groped by a pervert at the airport. Sensationalism will get you nowhere. FACTS MIGHT.

 

[bicker]

Incorrect.

No, sorry, but I'm correct.

The Supreme Court is the governmental body charged with interpreting the Constitution at any given time. But as Supreme Court justices change, so does that interpretation. Therefore, something deemed "constitutional" by one makeup of the Supreme Court may be stricken down by another set of justices serving on the Supreme Court...

Meaning that the constitutionality of the thing changed.

You were indeed confusing personal preference with something having to do with governance of the nation.

However, I agree that the Supreme Court has ultimate authority to determine constitutionality at any given time.

And you don't. I'm glad that we agree on that, at least.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

... There's a great deal of prior legal precedent to suggest that this particular Supreme Court will rule this issue unconstitutional...

And there is at least as much precedent to suggest that it will be upheld.

Just trying to keep the discussion even-handed.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...I wish you would STOP THAT...

I am a member of another board that has an automatic 2 week suspension rule for anyone invoking Godwin's Law.

 

[kaytieeldr]

But one could always choose to simply take the Queen Mary 2 from New York to London.

Despite what the city and state of New York would have you believe, most of the country's population doesn't live there. It would still require, as DMRick pointed out, some form of public or private transportation between one's home and the port. Sure, many people can drive there; for most, it's simply not feasible.

 

[kaytieeldr]

However, I agree that the Supreme Court has ultimate authority to determine constitutionality at any given time. That's why I said I would abide by a Supreme Court ruling on this. I do, however, reserve the right to work lawfully and peaceably towards a change in the balance of power in the Supreme Court should I no longer agree that the current makeup reflects an accurate interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.

Balance of power? It's not nine individuals with a variety of backgrounds, experiences, opinions, and political leanings? Interesting... anyway, as long as you're aware such steps aren't as 'simple' and 'fast' as replacing an elected official... or that you truly have little, if any, say in the actual person or persons appointed to the Supreme Court.

 

[kaytieeldr]

That's so ridiculous. At what point did an airplane become the only possible choice for reaching the Caribbean, Europe, Australia, Asia, etc.? I must have missed the memo stating that ships no longer access those places.

Well, until that last little sarcastic bite, I was going to... oh, heck. Kudos to you for recognizing that there ARE other modes of travel between continents. Sure, they're not as convenient - but they're how people got around for thousands of years before airplanes.

You go ahead and take your naked scans and gropes

Oh, boy. I thought we were past that. Naked scans? Gropes? We're back to sensationalizing instead of facts?

for the privilege of squeezing into a tiny seat with no leg room.

Oh, no. JetBlue provides me with a wide-enough seat - not luxuriously so, but enough - leather, by the way, and certainly more than enough leg room for my five foot nothing self.

I'll walk through a metal detector carrying my coffee and wearing my shoes en route to a fantastic adventure on a freighter ship or a luxury cruise on an ocean liner,

Just as well. Couldn't manage the carry-on, the personal item and a cup of coffee anyway.

where someone cooks fabulous meals 24 hours a day and waits on me hand and foot while I kick back and do my job with a cocktail in my hand and the ocean breeze in my face. We'll both get to the same place in the end, but I bet I have more fun getting there.

Not exactly. "My place" is landlocked, so you're not getting there by cruise ship any time soon and, well, while you're luxuriating on that ship for several days, I've been at my destination enjoying IT, cocktails and all. No, no ocean breeze... but heck, with a strong westerly wind, I can get that by stepping out my front door . Worst case, I can drive the half-mile to the ocean... ANY day.
And just so nobody's entirely misled - freighter travel is great, but NOT like typical cruise ship travel. Don't be fooled

 

[JLTraveling]

I'm not sure how. You seem to be skipping over a vital phrase in that post:The current procedure is just barely a blip at domestic airports now - not that anyone could tell, given the media attention to the few; can't see anything being expanded beyond airports any time soon.

You seem to be losing sight of what I'm saying. It's barely a blip at domestic airports NOW. It's not being expanded beyond airports any time SOON. I'm thinking ahead. Just like I was when the Patriot Act was first passed and I wondered if people would someday put up with invasive pat downs. Then, as now, I was told that the sky was falling and I was being ridiculous and hysterical. But I was RIGHT. I don't want to be right again. I don't want the day to come when things are horrific and unstoppable. But every time we allow a freedom to be eroded, it makes it that much easier to erode the next one.

Dammit I wish you would STOP THAT. But since you won't shut up with your comparison, invalid as it is, at the risk of delving into the dreaded political conversation: We have a representative government. If you don't like the way your town, city, state, or country is being run, vote with your vote. In the meantime, contact your elected officials with valid suggestions for change. Don't whine that your freedom is being eroded, or fall for the media's sobriquet of nude-o-scopes, or claim that you were groped by a pervert at the airport. Sensationalism will get you nowhere. FACTS MIGHT.

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to STOP THAT because you said so. I do vote, I am involved in political campaigning, and I do contact my elected official with valid suggestions. However, I am ALSO free to speak my mind and raise concerns and comparisons. That is another of the freedoms that has not (yet?) been stripped away. You're free to ignore me or argue with me, but not to yell at me to shut up.

I am a member of another board that has an automatic 2 week suspension rule for anyone invoking Godwin's Law.

You're all right, BamaFan. I may fundamentally disagree with some of your arguments, but you're a good guy.

Despite what the city and state of New York would have you believe, most of the country's population doesn't live there. It would still require, as DMRick pointed out, some form of public or private transportation between one's home and the port. Sure, many people can drive there; for most, it's simply not feasible.

One could drive, take the train, take a bus, hitchhike, ride a horse... whether or not it's feasible for most people isn't my point. My point is that in one breath, some posters say "don't like it, don't fly." Then in the next breath they suggest that not flying means not traveling, and therefore those who take their advice and don't fly are clearly staying home. It's a flawed argument.

Balance of power? It's not nine individuals with a variety of backgrounds, experiences, opinions, and political leanings? Interesting... anyway, as long as you're aware such steps aren't as 'simple' and 'fast' as replacing an elected official... or that you truly have little, if any, say in the actual person or persons appointed to the Supreme Court.

Thank you for enlightening me. I must have slept through Civics class, Constitutional Law class, and every US History class I've ever taken. Gee, I had no idea how the process works./sarcasm

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Despite what the city and state of New York would have you believe, most of the country's population doesn't live there. It would still require, as DMRick pointed out, some form of public or private transportation between one's home and the port. Sure, many people can drive there; for most, it's simply not feasible.

I'm certain that poster was referring to how they would travel if not by air. Not everyone is of the mind to use air transportation even when security is less intimate on planes. It is a viable option for that poster. The inconvenience it would be for others is irrelevant. He/she was challenged that they wouldn't be able to go anywhere. They showed that international travel is still possible. Longer perhaps, but not impossible. Air travel made travel easier so that more could do it. But it did not render other modes obsolete for those who choose the alternative.

And as much as I hate it,'there are folks out there with more money to spend than I do, so aruing the expense is moot for those who prefer to spend that money on ocean liners and rail. One can cruise around the world if they have enough time and money. It seems that poster is fine with that.

To be honest, that intrigues means well. At least it is cheaper than owning a retirement bus.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Not sure how I did that...but doublepost!

 

[DMRick]

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to STOP THAT because you said so. I do vote, I am involved in political campaigning, and I do contact my elected official with valid suggestions. However, I am ALSO free to speak my mind and raise concerns and comparisons. That is another of the freedoms that has not (yet?) been stripped away. You're free to ignore me or argue with me, but not to yell at me to shut up.

The problem is, you really don't have the 'right' to discuss politics on this board (cause the powers that be took away that 'right' as owners). If you and others keep doing it, we can kiss this thread goodbye.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I'm certain that poster was referring to how they would travel if not by air. Not everyone is of the mind to use air transportation even when security is less intimate on planes. It is a viable option for that poster.

Understood, but she was responding to someone who had already said it wasn't convenient for them to drive across the country (FL to CA) to cruise to distant locations, and who I think had also said they would prefer to fly to New York from Fort Lauderdale for a transatlantic cruise, than to drive.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Understood, but she was responding to someone who had already said it wasn't convenient for them to drive across the country (FL to CA) to cruise to distant locations, and who I think had also said they would prefer to fly to New York from Fort Lauderdale for a transatlantic cruise, than to drive.

I saw that. But when she was challenged and responded, it turned into a debate of inconvenience when originally she said she inferred that she was not cutting herself off from the world.

Those inconveniences for others was something she was fine with dealing if it allowed her to avoid what she feels are intrusive scanners.

For me-I'm on a convenient boycott due to a lack of funds. No airports for me for now. The places I want to go are (for now) accessible via alternative means. It will take longer, but I am fortunate to have the time should an opportunity arise.

That won't work for you or DMRick or others. But since 6 airline tickets are pricey even on sale, we have been on a self imposed no fly list as a family even before the upgrade in searches. We have travel plans in the united states that will take care of vacations for a decade or more. Only one trip is on the west coast for our wish list. But that doesn't come up for another 3-5 years. I have time for all of this to sort itself out. But I'm okay with driving either way or taking the train or whatever if I have the money.

It may not work for other people. That's okay. (and yes, i've done the partial cross country trip, MS to LA and I survived, im sure my kids will too!)