[mseebach]

> But once again, that presupposes flying in an airplane a fundamental human right.

No.

Thought experiment: Where in the constitution does it say that it's a fundamental human right to use laptops? Now, what do you think the supreme court would have to say about congress deciding you have to deposit an unencrypted copy of your hard drive every week with the Laptop Safety Agency?

Just like Congress can regulate laptops in the interest of public safely, they can regulate air travel in the interest of public safety. But in neither of those situation can they subject citizens to unreasonable searches, no matter if the constitution mentions neither laptops or airplanes.

[kgo]

You don't think the LSA would violate the first ammendment?

[rbanffy]

OK, we can see where you are going. Where is it stated driving a car is a fundamental right?

[kgo]

As I alluded to several posts down, I don't think it is. Lets pick a random fundamental human right: Free expression.

If you lived in a society that:

  + Required you to take a test and get a license to execute your rights.

  + Included arbitrary age restrictions for this license.

  + Required you to carry this license (a.k.a. "your papers") to exercise this right.

  + Only allowed you to use equipment that was registered with the government and met various government standards.

  + Required periodic inspections of said equipment.

  + Required you to buy insurance.

  + Could revoke said right if you broke particular laws.

  + Could setup random checkpoints to insure you weren't under the influence of drugs.

To exercise you rights of free expression...

Any number of human rights and civil liberties organizations would be going crazy. And although some of these organizations may be against some of these restrictions, like random checkpoints, I don't see any legitimate organizations decrying the idea of licensing drivers.

Your right to drive is in an entirely different class than 'fundamental' rights.

[viraptor]

Actually you can drive what you want and in whatever way you want on your own road. It's the road that's regulated, not you or your car. You cannot use the public road without a test and a license, you have to have insurance to drive alongside other cars, etc. etc.

[kgo]

But once again, you don't need permission to exercise fundamental rights anywhere in a civilized country.

If I'm on a public sidewalk, the default assumption is that I can pass out whatever pamphlets I want. That I can spew out whatever tirades I want to. Even if I'm in the KKK. Because I have a fundamental right to free expression and freedom of the press.

I can do this anywhere in the US. The only time I can get into trouble is if I'm conflicting with someone else' fundamental rights. If I do this at a Walmart, they can kick me out because of their own property rights. But even then, they're not saying I can't express myself, I just can't do it on their property. I can go to the public sidewalk in front of the store and they can't do jack.

I can be one of those assholes that stands on the sidewalk outside of a funeral home and say that this marine is dead because God hates gay people. And when the dad sues me, he'll lose, because I have a fundamental right to free speech.

On a public road, the default assumption is that I'm forbidden from driving unless I've met several criteria first. You start with the assumption that by default I'm not allowed to drive on a public road. And I'm only granted that right (or privilege) once I've established that I'm qualified and safe and using an approved vehicle. Not a fundamental right.

[enjo]

I can do this anywhere in the US. The only time I can get into trouble is if I'm conflicting with someone else' fundamental rights. If I do this at a Walmart, they can kick me out because of their own property rights. But even then, they're not saying I can't express myself, I just can't do it on their property. I can go to the public sidewalk in front of the store and they can't do jack.

Except that isn't really true. Try doing that on a public sidewalk in a residential neighborhood at 1AM. Your going to run into trouble. The Supreme Court has long held that certain restrictions of speech are acceptable. We're all familiar with shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, but the court has heard countless variations. Much of the courts rulings on the first amendment have clearly been in trying to establish a line between the reasonable restriction while preserving the intent of the amendment.

For instance, the supreme court has dealt with exotic dancing on a few occasions. They've held that the exotic dancing is a form of speech (expression) and therefore subject to first amendment protection. However, at the same time they've consistently allowed for limits on that expression. Including cases like Erie vs. Paps (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1161.ZO.html) in which the court held that the city of Erie could enact certain controls over nude dancing (reversing a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision).

The point being that in the United States there is no such thing as a 'universal right'. The bill of rights lays out fundamental principles, and the courts are responsible for figuring out how best to satisfy those principles in the real world.

[__david__]

You are not allowed to stand in the middle of a busy public street and pass out pamphlets. Likewise you are not allowed to drive on the road without a license. I don't think you can make your distinction between "fundamental" rights and other rights based on what you can do on a sidewalk.