The right to travel =/= the right travel by plane. But note from that case:
A very narrow ruling.
Lots to read on that ruling. More later.
But the notion begs the reader to ask the question: Why is the No Fly List still in use, if it has been ruled unconstitutional? Is it that the SCOTUS has yet to rule on it?
I would defer to the Richard’s analysis. He’s the expert here, not us. But note that neither of those mentioned the 4th amendment.
Like I said, I apparently mistook your comment as being part of an earlier back and forth about whether generally we’ve lost or gained rights.
Sorry, didn’t see this one. I find it useful to be at least little bit humble when it comes to questions of constitutionality. I’m pretty familiar with 2nd amendment jurisprudence and I know the SCOTUS has ruled that individuals have the right own guns. And that right can’t be taken away without due process. I don’t know nearly as much about the “right to travel”, but suspect it is a bit more complicated that it would appear on the surface, especially since it isn’t spelled out anywhere in the constitution.
That’s probably one of the reasons. It’s hard to challenge I’d imagine, what with all the information being secret. It was also created somewhat recently in SCOTUS time frames. Look at the incident with Rahinah Ibrahim. Her adventure started in 2005 and was adjudicated in 2014. She won at the district level after the 9th circuit remanded and the DOJ said they do not intend to appeal. Oddly the plaintiff’s daughter was a witness and a US born citizen and was not permitted to board a plane to attend the trial because she was also on the no-fly list erroneously. Another interesting tidbit, when Ibrahim was denied entry at various times, she was given a letter informing her that the Department of State was unable to issue her a visa. On the form she received, it was check boxed the reason was Section 212(a)(3)B and **literally **someone hand wrote the word (Terrorist) on the form.
From the district court opinion:
WTF?
Now how about answering the question: As a loyal Republican, does it make you happy or sad that, electorally, they are clearly the party of the NRA?
I’m hoping Richard Parker comes back in gives us his opinion on how SCOTUS might rule. I would LIKE to think the whole thing is unconstitutional, but you never know… Obviously Obama and Hillary think it’s constitutional.
Well, that didn’t work out as planned. 
Apparently the Democrats suddenly stop reliving their hippy daze of the 60’s and 70’s or couldn’t remember falling down? Why else would 70 year olds be sitting on the floor?
A sit-in? Really? It was painful watching those olde folks sitting on the floor. Heck, it was painful watching those olde folks TRYING to get down to the floor.
Fortunately, House Democrats came to their senses (maybe their Depends were full?) and called off their Congressional version of Occupy Wall Street. Yawn.
Regardless of whether it came to a vote, or passed, or the bill they were fighting for was even feasible, the Democrats won. The narrative coming out of this was that the Democrats are actually fighting for something, demanding safety for Americans, and that the Republicans were again putting their fingers in their ears and going “LALALALA” after another mass shooting, all while shutting off the Congressional camera feed so no one could see what was happening on the floor.
But go ahead an yawn while your party continues to fiddle.
You know would it be funny if “Mary Ellen” and “Erin” from The Waltons were arguing and Ted Poe banged the gavel to get them to shut up? it would be really funny and if they refused, then he would have gaveled them to their room!
No more than it made me upset when the Democrats used to be the party of the ACLU. Our liberties should be the top priority of both parties.
what is so hard about this: Democrats need to get rhetorically and morally tougher on Radical Islamic Terror, and the Republicans have to stop being so theoretically and idealistic about guns; of course suspected Islamic terrorists shouldn’t be able to get them!
No they shouldn’t. But if you’re an American citizen, you have the right to own a gun unless denied that right through due process. Being on a secret list is not how it’s done here.
They aren’t going to rule on this case because there is not going to be an appeal. The district level is the highest level of adjudication.
Your question about why the No-Fly list exists at all - because congressional actions have the presumption of constitutionality and it’s really hard to challenge the list.
so we shouldn’t have terrorist watch lists? Wasn’t your argument the same argument liberals made in the 2000s about the Patriot Act? No watch list is perfect, but protecting the many is more important than pleasing the few NRA leaders.
The ACLU is not a political organization.
We should have terrorist watch lists. The purpose of these lists is to let the FBI know who to keep an eye on. If you actually want to take away an American’s rights, then you have to prove something.
Now for non-Americans, I’m fine with restrictions. No one has the right to travel here, or buy a gun once they do travel here.
You’re still evading. Is it good or bad that your party is opposed to the civil liberties that the Democrats support? Is it good or bad, in either the moral or electoral sense, that the party to whom you are loyal is the party of the NRA?
But they are not, as you know. Your party does not support the right to life of the already-born, instead supporting a right to kill.
It’s certainly understandable that you can’t address that basic truth comfortably.
This has been a fairly civil debate. Knock off the stupid, partisan comments. (Particularly inappropriate given that the Democrats are following the actions of the 2008 Republicans–with Ryan is behaving just like Pelosi at that time).
[ /Moderating ]
You seem to have trouble with the concept of rights. Republicans absolutely support the right to life of the already born. Rights do not require a financial payout. That’s known as a benefit.