f7ben Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 14 minutes ago, Highmark said: 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 uhhh ....are you retarded. Restricting someone from flying is not impeding their freedom of movement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 20 minutes ago, f7ben said: uhhh ....are you retarded. Restricting someone from flying is not impeding their freedom of movement 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 1 minute ago, Capt.Storm said: 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. that is a singular lower court ruling .....let me know when the supreme court takes it up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Just now, f7ben said: that is a singular lower court ruling .....let me know when the supreme court takes it up I could say the same to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted June 21, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) 26 minutes ago, f7ben said: uhhh ....are you retarded. Restricting someone from flying is not impeding their freedom of movement Bullshit. When you need to get from one coast to another to a funeral its restriction of travel. This doesn't even begin to cover life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. You are a medicated retard. Edited June 21, 2016 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Just now, Highmark said: Bullshit. When you need to get from one coast to another to a funeral its restriction of travel. You are a medicated retard. So revoking someones drivers license is unconstitutional in your feeble mind? How about not allowing someone to drive their car at 100mph? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted June 21, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, f7ben said: So revoking someones drivers license is unconstitutional in your feeble mind? How about not allowing someone to drive their car at 100mph? Someone can get their drivers license revoked for something they said? Your comparison is not valid. Edited June 21, 2016 by Highmark 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, Highmark said: Someone can get their drivers license revoked for something they said? absolutely For example, PennDOT can suspend the driver's license of any person, under the age of 21, who was convicted for making a terroristic threat .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted June 21, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, f7ben said: absolutely For example, PennDOT can suspend the driver's license of any person, under the age of 21, who was convicted for making a terroristic threat .. Now, go read the portion of my earlier post where travel restriction is up to the states and NOT the federal govt and ask yourself who controls the terror watch list or no fly list. In your example are you suggesting we confiscate their vehicle? Edited June 21, 2016 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, f7ben said: absolutely For example, PennDOT can suspend the driver's license of any person, under the age of 21, who was convicted for making a terroristic threat .. Key word in bold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted June 21, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 21, 2016 Just now, Capt.Storm said: Key word in bold. Ben wipes shit from face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 1 minute ago, Highmark said: Ben wipes shit from face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted June 21, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 21, 2016 Reality is there is nothing wrong and we should have watch lists. The problem is when there is no due process of these lists when they start taking away freedom's that American's enjoy. If Marteen had made threats then he should have been prosecuted. If found not guilty then so be it at least we put it in the hands of the legal system. I'm very surprised at Ben's stance on this. He's often acted like such a proponent of peoples constitutional rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, Highmark said: Reality is there is nothing wrong and we should have watch lists. The problem is when there is no due process of these lists when they start taking away freedom's that American's enjoy. If Marteen had made threats then he should have been prosecuted. If found not guilty then so be it at least we put it in the hands of the legal system. I'm very surprised at Ben's stance on this. He's often acted like such a proponent of peoples constitutional rights. I agree. When it became that the gov could put anybody on a no fly list just because they think you are dangerous and you have no re-course ,that was a sad day..but that is because of the Patriot Act...Now called The Freedom Act I guess. A lower fed court has said the above is unconstitutional ...I guess we have to see what the Supreme Court says if they ever take it up? Help me out with that if I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted June 21, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 21, 2016 5 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said: I agree. When it became that the gov could put anybody on a no fly list just because they think you are dangerous and you have no re-course ,that was a sad day..but that is because of the Patriot Act...Now called The Freedom Act I guess. A lower fed court has said the above is unconstitutional ...I guess we have to see what the Supreme Court says if they ever take it up? Help me out with that if I'm wrong. No you are correct. The judge ordered the govt to do a few things regarding recourse for those on the list. Not sure if they have held up their part of the bargain. They did let the 10-13 who filed the suit thru the ACLU fly home after additional screening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.