Trump Veers From Party Line on Gun Control

[f7ben]

Just now, Capt.Storm said:

Ok it's mostly a misunderstanding on my part then..although like Highmark said it's really important for some to be able to fly...but it is two diff deals..yeas.

that was my whole point  A constitutional right is nearly impossible for the government to restrict without significant action. That is the way it should be

[Momorider]

30 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Not for saying something or visiting a particular website they can't.

A no fly list with no reasonable way to get off of it can violate a persons right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."   On top of this you have due process infringement.  

From the court decision.

One need not look beyond the hardships suffered by Plaintiffs to understand the significance of the deprivation of the right to travel internationally. Due to the major burden imposed by inclusion on the No-Fly List, Plaintiffs have suffered significantly including long-term separation from spouses and children; the inability to access desired medical and prenatal care; the inability to pursue an education of their choosing; the inability to participate in important religious rites; loss of employment opportunities; loss of government entitlements; the inability to visit family; and the inability to attend important personal and family events such as graduations, weddings, and funerals. The Court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society.  

 

[f7ben]

2 minutes ago, Momorider said:

 

its not a constitutionally guaranteed right you braindead fucking shut in

[Capt.Storm]

4 minutes ago, f7ben said:

that was my whole point  A constitutional right is nearly impossible for the government to restrict without significant action. That is the way it should be

Seems to me you didn't put that out there clearly at first.

But they can do it so I'm not all wrong.

[Momorider]

3 minutes ago, f7ben said:

its not a constitutionally guaranteed right you braindead fucking shut in

Life liberty and the persuit of happiness sure as fuck is you Bipolarhooknosed FUCK  

[Capt.Storm]

And there was this in 2013 Ben..just sating.

 

nofly_knaeble-tile.jpg

A federal court took a critically important step late yesterday towards placing a check on the government's secretive No-Fly List. In a 38-page ruling in Latif v. Holder, the ACLU's challenge to the No-Fly List, U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown recognized that the Constitution applies when the government bans Americans from the skies. She also asked for more information about the current process for getting off the list, to inform her decision on whether that procedure violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process.

We represent 13 Americans, including four military veterans, who are blacklisted from flying. At oral argumentin June on motions for partial summary judgment, we asked the court to find that the government violated our clients' Fifth Amendment right to due process by barring them from flying over U.S. airspace – and smearing them as suspected terrorists – without giving them any after-the-fact explanation or a hearing at which to clear their names.

The court's opinion recognizes – for the first time – that inclusion on the No-Fly List is a draconian sanction that severely impacts peoples' constitutionally-protected liberties. It rejected the government's argument that No-Fly list placement was merely a restriction on the most "convenient" means of international travel.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Capt.Storm

[Momorider]

3 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

And there was this in 2013 Ben..just sating.

 

nofly_knaeble-tile.jpg

A federal court took a critically important step late yesterday towards placing a check on the government's secretive No-Fly List. In a 38-page ruling in Latif v. Holder, the ACLU's challenge to the No-Fly List, U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown recognized that the Constitution applies when the government bans Americans from the skies. She also asked for more information about the current process for getting off the list, to inform her decision on whether that procedure violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process.

We represent 13 Americans, including four military veterans, who are blacklisted from flying. At oral argumentin June on motions for partial summary judgment, we asked the court to find that the government violated our clients' Fifth Amendment right to due process by barring them from flying over U.S. airspace – and smearing them as suspected terrorists – without giving them any after-the-fact explanation or a hearing at which to clear their names.

The court's opinion recognizes – for the first time – that inclusion on the No-Fly List is a draconian sanction that severely impacts peoples' constitutionally-protected liberties. It rejected the government's argument that No-Fly list placement was merely a restriction on the most "convenient" means of international travel.

More Bipolarhooknose

[Capt.Storm]

3 minutes ago, Momorider said:

More Bipolarhooknose

He should have stopped when he was half right..lol.

[Ebsell]

5 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

And there was this in 2013 Ben..just sating.

 

nofly_knaeble-tile.jpg

A federal court took a critically important step late yesterday towards placing a check on the government's secretive No-Fly List. In a 38-page ruling in Latif v. Holder, the ACLU's challenge to the No-Fly List, U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown recognized that the Constitution applies when the government bans Americans from the skies. She also asked for more information about the current process for getting off the list, to inform her decision on whether that procedure violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process.

We represent 13 Americans, including four military veterans, who are blacklisted from flying. At oral argumentin June on motions for partial summary judgment, we asked the court to find that the government violated our clients' Fifth Amendment right to due process by barring them from flying over U.S. airspace – and smearing them as suspected terrorists – without giving them any after-the-fact explanation or a hearing at which to clear their names.

The court's opinion recognizes – for the first time – that inclusion on the No-Fly List is a draconian sanction that severely impacts peoples' constitutionally-protected liberties. It rejected the government's argument that No-Fly list placement was merely a restriction on the most "convenient" means of international travel.

You don't have to be a terrorist to be on the no fly list. I have a friend that got into a fight on a plane and was put on the no fly list. He deserved what he got and he knows it, although he complains about it all the time lol. I told him what kind of fucking idiot gets into a fight on a plane

[Capt.Storm]

7 minutes ago, Ebsell said:

You don't have to be a terrorist to be on the no fly list. I have a friend that got into a fight on a plane and was put on the no fly list. He deserved what he got and he knows it, although he complains about it all the time lol. I told him what kind of fucking idiot gets into a fight on a plane

It can happen.

 

Ben..here's some more.

 

The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.

Six years later, the Court struck down a federal ban restricting travel by communists (Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964))(personal restrictions, national security, First Amendment). But the court struggled to find a way to protect national interests (such as national security) in light of these decisions. Just a year after Aptheker, the Supreme Court fashioned the rational basis test for constitutionality in Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965) (area restrictions, foreign policy), as a way of reconciling the rights of the individual with the interests of the state.^[11]

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

Edited June 20, 2016 by Capt.Storm

[Capt.Storm]

19 minutes ago, Momorider said:

More Bipolarhooknose

You stuck with me on that ride..you're a brave man..good thing Ben wasn't driving eh? lol

[f7ben]

29 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

Seems to me you didn't put that out there clearly at first.

But they can do it so I'm not all wrong.

They can do it and until the supreme court establishes precedent of what constitutes Life Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness its all opinion. What is not opinion is that there are certain rights that are clearly defined that the government does and should have a very hard time suspending

[f7ben]

also a no fly list does not restrict travel per se ....just a form of travel

[Capt.Storm]

 

3 minutes ago, f7ben said:

also a no fly list does not restrict travel per se ....just a form of travel

now you're reaching...but true.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Capt.Storm

[f7ben]

Just now, Capt.Storm said:

 

now you're reaching...but true.

its not reaching .....its the truth and likely how the Supreme court would interpret it

[Capt.Storm]

7 minutes ago, f7ben said:

its not reaching .....its the truth and likely how the Supreme court would interpret it

No I agree with you ..they could come and go by boat no doubt. But that's not really relevant to our discussion.

[Ebsell]

Bottom line is flying and driving is a privilege not a right. 

[f7ben]

1 minute ago, Ebsell said:

Bottom line is flying and driving is a privilege not a right. 

yes

[Capt.Storm]

51 minutes ago, Ebsell said:

Bottom line is flying and driving is a privilege not a right. 

The courts have said flying is a right...see links above.

I even brought it down for you!

The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.

 

Edited June 20, 2016 by Capt.Storm

[f7ben]

1 minute ago, Capt.Storm said:

The courts have said flying is a right...see links above.

no , it said ability to travel ...not fly

[Capt.Storm]

Just now, f7ben said:

no , it said ability to travel ...not fly

Same thing!

The rest of it.

Six years later, the Court struck down a federal ban restricting travel by communists (Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964))(personal restrictions, national security, First Amendment). But the court struggled to find a way to protect national interests (such as national security) in light of these decisions. Just a year after Aptheker, the Supreme Court fashioned the rational basis test for constitutionality in Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965) (area restrictions, foreign policy), as a way of reconciling the rights of the individual with the interests of the state.^[11]

 

 

[Capt.Storm]

A federal court took a critically important step late yesterday towards placing a check on the government's secretive No-Fly List. In a 38-page ruling in Latif v. Holder, the ACLU's challenge to the No-Fly List, U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown recognized that the Constitution applies when the government bans Americans from the skies. She also asked for more information about the current process for getting off the list, to inform her decision on whether that procedure violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process.

[Ebsell]

1 minute ago, Capt.Storm said:

Same thing!

The rest of it.

Six years later, the Court struck down a federal ban restricting travel by communists (Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964))(personal restrictions, national security, First Amendment). But the court struggled to find a way to protect national interests (such as national security) in light of these decisions. Just a year after Aptheker, the Supreme Court fashioned the rational basis test for constitutionality in Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965) (area restrictions, foreign policy), as a way of reconciling the rights of the individual with the interests of the state.^[11]

 

 

Right to travel is not the same thing as right to fly. Sorry but you are reaching to put it mildly lol

[Capt.Storm]

1 minute ago, Ebsell said:

Right to travel is not the same thing as right to fly. Sorry but you are reaching to put it mildly lol

A federal court took a critically important step late yesterday towards placing a check on the government's secretive No-Fly List. In a 38-page ruling in Latif v. Holder, the ACLU's challenge to the No-Fly List, U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown recognized that the Constitution applies when the government bans Americans from the skies. She also asked for more information about the current process for getting off the list, to inform her decision on whether that procedure violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Capt.Storm

[Highmark]

17 hours ago, f7ben said:

there is no comparison between a no fly list and removing someones 2nd amendment rights ......if you think there is you are a fucking retard

Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right.

 In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."^[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).^[2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law