[maxawaytoolong]

I don't buy the argument that since flying is not a "fundamental human right" makes it ok for the government to flout the 4th amendment in this particular circumstance.

It would be just as egregious if federal employees were stationed for pat downs and full body scans at the World Series or your local Halloween parade. No pat down, no trick or treat for you!

I find all the Republican arguments that begin with "the constitution applies, except when..." a bit disturbing, frankly.

[kgo]

I'm not a supporter of the TSA by any means, but if you're going to enforce the ninth amendment completely literally, you can just come up with more and more ridiculous examples of things that we're doing now that are completely unconstitutional.

What specifically enumerated power allows the federal government to create the FDA, robbing me of my right to sell food with ground glass in it, or to sell pills that give you cancer?

What specifically enumerated power allows them to rob me of my right to pour radioactive sludge into a river that's on my property?

If you want to take the Super-libertarian Ron Paul approach, and say they shouldn't be doing these things, that's fine. But that strict interpretation of the Ninth Amendment isn't in practice today.

[jacoblyles]

Fortunately, the Constitution allows for subsidiary levels of government to make all the criminal and civil codes they need while restraining the federal government from arbitrary overreach.

But I am in a statistical minority that cares about laws being enforced as written. Most of the country is fine with the government having whatever powers it finds expedient at the moment.

[rottencupcakes]

What terrible examples.

The FDA, as discussed in the Boat Captain thread, is entirely unnecessary. One potential option, as mentioned, was tort liability for all things not disclosed when the pills were sold.

Clearly defined water rights would more than properly solve number two.

Learn something about other political views before making ridiculous statements. There's no need to write it off by citing some Christian quasi-libertarian who for some reason liberals have adopted as the poster child of libertarianism. Probably just to defame it in the minds of mindless liberal voters.

[kgo]

Uh, I'm aware of other political views. But unfortunately the Supreme Court doesn't subscribe to them, and won't in the foreseeable future. We can argue all we want about what the Ninth Amendment means, but things like the FDA aren't going to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court anytime soon. They'd say it falls under the vague "interstate commerce" clause. And they'd say the same thing for the FAA.

[caf]

Right. If "flying" isn't a fundamental human right, then neither is "driving", or even "walking to the shops".

[kgo]

You need a license to drive a car.

You don't need a license to write a book, publish a newsletter, to form some sort of organization and assemble, etc...

Your license can be revoke if (for example) you get too many DUIs.

Your rights to freedom of the press, expression, assembly, etc, can't be revoked.

[caf]

I'm lead to understand that in most cities you do need a permit to hold a demonstration.