Joe Manchin: “Due Process Is What’s Killing Us Right Now”
[guest post by Dana]
This is really something. And yet it shouldn’t be surprising.
Ilya Shapiro responds:
With all due respect, due process is the essential basis of America. The Constitution was established to “secure the blessings of liberty”—that’s the whole purpose of our government—and that government can’t deny us our life, liberty, or property without due process of law. If the government wants to deny someone’s liberty, it better have an awfully good reason and it better be ready to defend itself in court immediately—akin to what happens when someone is arrested or involuntarily committed. Otherwise, we’d live in a world where perhaps there’s less crime, but also life isn’t worth living.
Senator Manchin may want to live in a police state, but few of us would want to join him there. Count me out of the time machine to East Germany.
–Dana
The Constitution just keeps getting in the way of the left’s plans for us.
Dana (995455) — 6/16/2016 @ 7:27 amThere was some hope that Manchin was too West Virginian to be captured by the beltway. That hope is gone.
He is a pandering fool, a vile pandering fool.
Steve Malynn (1d7837) — 6/16/2016 @ 7:31 amwell he voted at least once for robertscare, and he was byrd’s protege, so I didn’t have any doubts,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/16/2016 @ 7:37 amWhat solution for ending terrorist massacres in the US has the Patterico community settled on? You guys are even opposed to temporarily banning new ones from coming here, aren’t you?
Jcurtis (672e02) — 6/16/2016 @ 7:42 am“…under this Administration, accusations of “Islamophobia” are career-ending, whereas letting people be killed by the dozens is just an unfortunate bit of government work.”
— Glenn Reynolds
Colonel Haiku (7e501e) — 6/16/2016 @ 7:46 amBoth presidential candidates responded to this horrible tragedy to call for more gun control.
Some think they are utilizing the crisis to get the policies they want, but I have a darker view. I think they are manipulating the voters into thinking they can do something, when they are both totally clueless about what to do. And just to flail a little less wildly, they offer our civil rights as Isaac to their God the pollster.
Manchin doesn’t care about the actual policy. Listen to what he says. He claims he knows how to keep us from being killed. He wants us to see this issue as a wedge dividing America into those who are going to get us killed, and those who are going to save us. He’s talking dependency. It’s the same song with a different flavor, but basically that’s how everything is discussed now. Social security reform, terrorism, solar panels, it’s all about life and death, and if you want to live you’ll vote for whomever is talking, be it R or D.
Dustin (2a8be7) — 6/16/2016 @ 7:50 amI submit that the general narrative is the same,
ignore the obvious of doing what we can and should be doing better already,
and jump at the chance to mess up with another new thing.
How about using our current due process
MD in Philly (06960c) — 6/16/2016 @ 8:10 amwithout the Islamophobiaphobia?
I mean, people have been flying from the wood work including his grade school teachers that he was scary and with no help from his dad, multiple trips to SA, contact with a known radical cleric,
and the FBI said “no problem here”.
I mean, really.
MD in Philly (06960c) — 6/16/2016 @ 8:15 amIs the FBI manpower being taxed with infiltrating all of those conservative groups applying for 501c4 status????
“The administration and its goose-stepping allies in Congress, like Joe Manchin, are what’s allowing Islamic jihadists to kill us right now.”
BobStewartatHome (a52abe) — 6/16/2016 @ 8:43 amBears repeating from Monday’s thread:
“I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the American police state represents a more serious threat to the American way of life than Islamic terrorism. Perhaps Islamic terrorism represents a more serious threat to human life, broadly speaking, but “the American way of life” is characterized by freedoms and civil liberties and these are far more seriously (existentially) threatened by a brazenly expansionist police state.
No solutions, only trade-offs, but people in this country need to start seriously considering whether they want the “American way of life,” or just want to decrease their individual chances of physically dying.”
Leviticus (efada1) — 6/16/2016 @ 8:47 amOK, so you’re for suspending the Constitution. Instead of demanding a solution, why don’t you tell me what YOU have in mind. Go on. This has to be good.
Bill H (971e5f) — 6/16/2016 @ 8:58 amSuspend all immigration for 20 years. We need to work on improving Americans lives, not worrying about others who want to come here for the dream.
I know that will upset a lot of people reading this, but it’s reality. It’s been done before and it needs to be done again.
We will never fix our
NJRob (a07d2e) — 6/16/2016 @ 9:04 amindoctrinationeducation system till we get a handle on importing the poorest from other nations who become the next wave of leftist voters.Isn’t Joe Manchin the one who used a rifle to shoot a hole in the Cap-n-Trade bill as a campaign stunt back in October 2010? That gun shot is a revealing display of Joe’s is willing to blast through red tape when it suits him.
ropelight (596f46) — 6/16/2016 @ 9:28 amThere are several pertinent constitutional provisions here. One is the Second Amendment (protecting not just the right of the militia but the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms). Another is the grand jury clause which requires indictment by a Grand Jury before anyone can be disarmed by the federal government. Another is the Tenth Amendment which forbids the federal government from meddling in matters that are reserved to the states.
But all the huffing and puffing about “due process” is unconvincing. To the framers of the Bill of Rights, due process mainly meant that no branch of the federal government can deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without authorization from a federal law enacted according to the Constitution’s rigorous requirements (bicameral approval, presentment to the president, and compliance with the other provisions of the Constitution).
Inflating the concept of due process is what has given us an overzealous and often dictatorial judiciary, so please be careful about glorifying the concept beyond what the framers meant.
Andrew Hyman (fcd2e8) — 6/16/2016 @ 9:42 amAnd I’ll repeat,
MD in Philly (06960c) — 6/16/2016 @ 9:51 amWe have the worst of both,
Police state tactics against political opponents of the Dems,
and a blind eye to Islamist terrorists.
There is no Constitutional crisis in going to a public meeting in a mosque to hear what is being preached. There is no Constitutional crisis in monitoring visas which the government grants anyway. There is no Constitutional crisis looking to see what a person posts on facebook that is threatening violence.
If you don’t like the Constitution, or its Amendment II, then change it. There is a very well defined process that has been followed 27 times to do so. If you are unsuccessful at that and you find the country is too risky because of its strong gun culture, then emigrate some place else. Leave. There are about 1.3 million people who immigrate legally every year who actually like the Constitution and Amendment II enough to uproot themselves and come here. You won’t be missed.
Groty (31b7e8) — 6/16/2016 @ 10:07 amLeviticus,
Police states get traction with the populace by promising what you suggest, personal safety. They also exploit class envy, as in Venezuela, but this isn’t necessary. However tyrannies arise, history suggests that the long term prospects for those living in such a state are not good. In the Soviet Union after WWII the life expectancy of men had dropped into the low 60s by the 1970s. The Gulag was a tiny factor, but simple despair led many to alcoholism and an early death. “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.” This isn’t too different from the attitudes of prisoners in old fashioned prisons, where they had a rock pile and sludge hammers to keep everyone “busy”.
More ominously, the “narrative” in Europe is that “nationalism” led to WWII. This gives the bureaucrats the justification for stripping more and more power from the bitter clingers whom they rule over like petty tyrants. Their subjects are said to suffer from a nostalgic love of their region’s history which inevitably, so the narrative goes, leads to violence. But the truth is that the subjects of the current regime simply don’t like being bossed around by a group of self-selected ideologues in Brussels. They don’t like being told to embrace islamic immigrants who seek to overthrow their way of life. They don’t like supporting parasitic countries like Greece. They don’t like the regulatory state that dictates almost everything, except “Brave New World” sexual freedoms. Worse, the “nationalist spirit” that the current regime blames for war, was simply used by the totalitarians to prop up their ever increasing control of life in those countries. It was a clever propaganda campaign, but the totalitarian impulse came first. The “nationalism” was just the icing on the cake. Brussels is the latest version of this impulse. The propaganda tools are the same, only the subject matter, “patriots” replacing “jews”, “compassion” replacing “conquest”, has been changed to fit the narrative. And soon “jews” will be stirred back into the formula, and “conquest” won’t be far behind.
My great hope is that England will have the good sense to withdraw from this failed utopia.
BobStewartatHome (a52abe) — 6/16/2016 @ 10:13 am“Family of AR-15 inventor Eugene Stoner: He didn’t intend it for civilians.”
End of story.
DCSCA (a343d5) — 6/16/2016 @ 10:14 amAm I incorrect in my memory that some cities are already siezing weapons based on no more that their belief that the person is mentally off? If so, it would seem to me that ‘due process’ has gone out the back door with the trash. “Due Process”? What is this “Due Process” you speak of?
Tim Pruett (d6b56b) — 6/16/2016 @ 10:17 amBritain has just had a Gabby Giffords-like moment today. Will this be spun to shame people into the Remain camp?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/53ac09fe-33c3-11e6-ad39-3fee5ffe5b5b.html#axzz4BlUENwqO
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 6/16/2016 @ 10:35 amI bet that Manchin would change his tune if Trump were elected, which would be ironic.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/16/2016 @ 10:37 amBefore the Veterans Administration approves benefits to disabled vets they require a signed form affirming the vet is competent to manage his own finances. If the vet needs assistance with his finances, the VA notifies the feds the individual is incompetent which then deems the individual unfit to own firearms.
ropelight (596f46) — 6/16/2016 @ 10:37 amWeapons can be seized without so much as a finding of trouble. Many divorce proceedings have routine orders that require all guns to be surrendered, for example.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/16/2016 @ 10:41 am“…under this Administration, accusations of “Islamophobia” are career-ending, whereas letting people be killed by the dozens is just an unfortunate bit of government work.”
Whereas accusations of Islamophilia don’t harm you in the least. Considering the actions of the guy at the top, why would they?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/16/2016 @ 10:44 amBritain has just had a Gabby Giffords-like moment today. Will this be spun to shame people into the Remain camp?
I doubt it. There are too many competing newspapers in Britain, with a multitude of viewpoints. Anyone trying that would be pilloried. Despite the Official Secrets Act and the lack of a written Constitution, the British press seems a lot freer than the American lickspittle rags.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/16/2016 @ 10:49 amI keep on hearing that 223 people out of 244 (American citizens) on the No-Fly list were allowed to buy guns.
Nobody is saying whether any of those 223 people, committed any crime with them! Maybe nobody knows, but soimebody should try to find out. Because I suspect the number is clsoe to 0.
People don’t seem to understand that the more people on the No-Fly list who were allowed to buy guns the weaker the argument for using that as gun denying reason gets. Because we had the same number of crimes in any case, and the more people who obtained guns who you say shouldn’t have, the smaller the fraction of crimes committed by such people.
The problem with the No Fly list is not just people whose identities are confused with somebiody else. The whole list is no good. That’s the big secret, and also obvious.
And if somebody maybe who deserves it is on that list, he can also be taken off, as Omar Mateen was – twice.
Somewhat sensitive to the criticism that if this had been law, the massacre in Orlando would not have bene prevented, Dianne Feinstein has now amended her bill to say that anyway who was on the no-fly list anytime in the previous five years should also be prevented form buying a gun.
Now there’s a criticism that denial of a the abilitgy to purchase a gun could be used by a terrorist cell to determine if someone is under investigation, the denial is not automatic, but subject to a request by the FBI or DOJ or something.
Now there’s another thing: Why this trust in the competence of the FBI? When anybody can see that something is wrong here?
Sammy Finkelman (7ea384) — 6/16/2016 @ 11:12 amDustin (2a8be7) — 6/16/2016 @ 7:50 am
Neither is actually interested in trying to come up with something that will work. They’re both selling snake oil.
While I think Hillary Clinton may actually be interested in undermining civil liberties (although not with whatever she is proposing now)
She’s doing the liberal thing of pretending to have a solution for every problem – a solution that will stop something once and for all, and nobody will ever have to think about it again.
Donald Trump is just just trying to come up with something that makes him look not bad. He’s determined that he has to convert the NRA. He thinks maybe the NRA will listen to him because it has endorsed him, and maybe because they won’t want him to attack the NRA. If Donald trump actually learns something about this issue, it might actually be a good thing. He might come out and say the FBI and DOJ is not competent at best. But that would be hoping for a lot.
Sammy Finkelman (7ea384) — 6/16/2016 @ 11:17 amthere doesn’t seem to be a real motive, like britain first, probably just a maladjusted fellow,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/16/jo-cox-mp-everything-we-know-so-far-about-thomas-mair/
narciso (732bc0) — 6/16/2016 @ 11:37 amthe nra proved not averse to trump’s idea, the notion that the administration which has seen how passions can overwhelm reason in hungerford, and dunlane in the uk and port arthur, wouldn’t try to sneak something true, ‘don’t let a crisis go to waste’ is their model, is fanciful,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/16/2016 @ 11:43 amDue process is whatever the police, courts and lawyers say it is. I used to believe you had to be found guilty of a crime to have your property seized. After RICO any semblance of justice went out the window. I’ve seen the cops seize property for a crime and when the girl was found not guilty they refused to give her property back. They said the property seizure was a civil matter and she had to hire another lawyer and sue in a civil court. The entire idea f seizing a persons assets then telling him to hire a lawyer to defend himself is a kangaroo style tactic. How can a guy hire lawyer when the cops froze or seized his money? Only a guilty man would have money squirreled away to pay the lawyers so only an innocent man will get convicted because he doesn’t.
Rev. Hoagie© (734193) — 6/16/2016 @ 11:49 amThat Financial Times link is behind a paywall. What’s it about?
Sammy Finkelman (7ea384) — 6/16/2016 @ 11:50 amlike timesdirect, they have a certain allotment of articles,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/16/2016 @ 11:53 amMy name was on a watch list in the mid-2000’s until I went through the rigamarole to get off the list. Apparently, it was all first/last name matches until disproved at that time. So I have a less than perfect trust in the bureaucracy that maintains these lists. And for all I know, people can get on the list for cutting in line in front of an agent at the movies. Oh, sure, they swear they’d never do that, but they also swear that the Secret Service isn’t running hos and drugs out of their hotel rooms.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/16/2016 @ 12:33 pmThat’s the kind of comment that gets one on the watch list.
Rev. Hoagie© (734193) — 6/16/2016 @ 12:47 pmBritain First is a breakaway from the namby-pamby British National Party (which itself advocates expulsion of non-whites from Britain). It has its roots in the Ulster Loyalist direct-action folks and wants a return to a white-run Christian country. It has a vigilante wing called the “Britain First Defence Force”.
Pretty thoroughly denounced already, I doubt this will hurt anyone but them.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/16/2016 @ 12:51 pmThat’s the kind of comment that gets one on the watch list.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/16/2016 @ 12:51 pmThat’s the kind of comment that gets one on the watch list.
oops.
Yeah. Probably what did it last time.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/16/2016 @ 12:52 pmI’m on the Won’t-Fly List.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/16/2016 @ 12:53 pmI see that AR-15s are selling like hotcakes today. I bet heavy plastic boxes and shovels are going fast, too.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/16/2016 @ 12:57 pm32. Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/16/2016 @ 12:33 pm
I think it still is, except that now anybody under 6 years of age is not considered to be a match. They don’t rely on dates of brth, maybe because they don’t always have it.
There was a terrorist who got off the list by changing his name. David Coleman Headley, formerly known as Daood Sayed Gilani.
In fact they used to advise people, I think, that the way to get off the no-fly list was to change your name.
So I have a less than perfect trust in the bureaucracy that maintains these lists. And for all I know, people can get on the list for cutting in line in front of an agent at the movies. Oh, sure, they swear they’d never do that, but they also swear that the Secret Service isn’t running hos and drugs out of their hotel rooms.
Sammy Finkelman (7ea384) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:00 pm> The whole list is no good. That’s the big secret, and also obvious.
Then we should abolish it.
aphrael (3f0569) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:00 pmOmar Mateen might have been in alot more trouble, had he made any of his statements threatening people, or claiming to belong to a terrorist group, in an airport, or on board an airplane. But he didn’t, so he wasn’t.
Sammy Finkelman (7ea384) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:02 pmWe have to suspend due process so we can arrest al those crazy, violent Tea Party-types before there’s another incident like Orlando, Ft. Hood, Boston, San Bernardino, etc.
T'Pol (f91abc) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:11 pmIf it’s no good all it needs is a Senate investigation, the President to appoint a joint task force, a new czar of no-fly lists and special funding of 120 billion sponsored by Pelosi/Schumer. Then we’ll review it again in seven years. The only reason it’s no good is “lack of funding” because the Republicans in a fit of partisan hate are holding up the money in committee. We need a new Fliers Are Reasonable Threat bill or FART bill introduced by Sheila Jackson-Lee because the list is too big to fail.
Rev. Hoagie© (734193) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:12 pmDue process isn’t what’s killing us.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:13 pmIt’s Islamic Jihad.
Rev. Hoagie – the no-fly list is a secretly maintained list of people who are being denied the ability to travel by air, which *in effect* is a denial of the unenumerated right of freedom of motion. The burden is on the person placed on the list to prove they shouldn’t be on it, and they must do so without recourse to examination of the reasons they’ve been placed on it in the first place.
It’s inconsistent with our values as a people to have such a list, and we should abolish it.
Failing that, its membership should be subject to strict judicial review with an evidentiary requirement which is *higher than* probable cause.
aphrael (3f0569) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:15 pmJo Cox MP (Labour – Batley and Spen) was fatally shot and stabbed earlier today in Leeds. Mrs. Cox was 42, and had two young children. The attacker was a 52-year-old man, not apparently a Moslem or immigrant.
Rich Rostrom (d2c6fd) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:17 pmSF> The whole list is no good. That’s the big secret, and also obvious.
40. aphrael (3f0569) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:00 pm
It’s completely useless, and almost completely pointless, because the premise is that somebody might be a hijacker and/or commit a terrorist act aboard an airplane. But hijacking has almost completely been prevented by locking the cockpit doors and by pilots being instructed not to give in to any threats or demands, no matter what. And harm to passengers by somebody aboard an airplane is very much prevented by the screening process.
Terrorist acts aboard an airplane can almost entirely be ruled out even without this list. A terrorist might travel aboard an airplane, but to do something else at his destination. You can afford to wait to question them, or even arrest them, later.
Now there are some real terrorists maybe on this list (most of whom are very unlikely to get anywhere near an airplane at a U.S. airport, or headed for the USA, at least with their right name) and it’s also useful for stopping fugitives wanted by the police from fleeing, so the list might do something, even maybe to the occasional terrorist, whom it might stop from traveling in the service of terrorism, but that’s a different purpose than the original purpose, which was to prevent hijackers from boarding an airplane. Whatever good is actually accomplished can probably be accomplished some other way, and with a much smaller list.
And they should stop worrying about hijacking (unless there’s some real information that there’s a hijacking plot in the works) because hijacking isn’t so easy to do; and start paying attention to dates of birth, or at least dates of birth +-5 years or so, and to other kinds of information, to zero in on the right people.
Sammy Finkelman (7ea384) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:31 pmLet me start by saying I was joking. That said, no one is being denied the right of freedom of motion, they can move all they want just not by air.
Where did freedom of motion come from?
Rev. Hoagie© (734193) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:38 pmNJRob, that is an aspect of the comprehensive solution to this problem. Also an aspect of the solution for other top issues. I don’t know why Trump hasn’t made that a campaign promise.
Jcurtis (672e02) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:41 pmaphrael,
Is there an inherent “right” to travel by air that I’m unaware of?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:41 pmI think making airplane seats from pig skin would eliminate more terrorists than a no fly list. And it doesn’t deny anyone their right of motion.
Rev. Hoagie© (734193) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:45 pmIf we have a “right of motion” and thereby extended to a right to fly would that make the Wright brothers civil rights leaders like MLK? After all, they did make the right to fly a reality.
Rev. Hoagie© (734193) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:49 pmIt’s so goddamn funny how a big-government liberal such as aphrael is having a freak-out about big-government regulation over transportation.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:50 pmI wonder if he would argue that the DMV doesn’t have the authority to suspend someone’s driver’s license, because doing so would impede upon one’s “freedom of motion.”
Gawd.
There’s a fundamental right to travel.
Leviticus (efada1) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:51 pmIs there a bureaucracy you have perfect trust in?
The Dept of Fish and Wildlife – keep pretty good track of my fishing trips. Thorough.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:51 pmI think they have spy cam in the trees around the good fishing holes.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:54 pmThink of it. Instead of the mundane MLK Ave. we would have Wright Bros. Blvd. And instead of getting off on the third Monday in January for MLK Day, we’d get the third Monday AND Tuesday as Orville and Wilbur Days. I like it.
Rev. Hoagie© (734193) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:54 pmI can’t wait until liberals call for the abolishment of the DMV due to its regulations, restrictions, and overall impediment to people’s Constitutional right to travel by motor vehicle.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:56 pmYeah, and there’s a Constitutional right to own a firearm but you can still be denied.
Rev. Hoagie© (734193) — 6/16/2016 @ 1:56 pmThe home owners association thinks they have a God given that they never see my grass grow knee high.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/16/2016 @ 2:00 pmThere’s also a freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean that you can go into a crowded theatre and shout, “Fire!”
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/16/2016 @ 2:01 pmWell, we’ve been told by two Constitutional Law experts that there is a unenumerated right of freedom of motion and a fundamental right to travel. Every day I learn something at Patterico. Today is a double header.
Rev. Hoagie© (734193) — 6/16/2016 @ 2:10 pmIf you guys cared about honest discussion, rather than shooting your mouths off, you would see that aphrael made explicit reference to the constitutional standards by which fundamental rights (like the right to travel) may be restricted: strict judicial scrutiny placing burdens of proof on the State, rather than US citizens.
This framework accounts for Hoagie’s second amendment example, and Trump Supporter’s first amendment example.
The equivalents to those examples would be a “no-talk list” or a “no-gun” list which the State could put you on without restriction, generously allowing you to argue to them why you shouldn’t be on it (without being told why you were on it in the first place).
Leviticus (efada1) — 6/16/2016 @ 2:18 pmYou’d have to pantomime your argument to get off the “no talk list,” though.
Leviticus (efada1) — 6/16/2016 @ 2:19 pmRev Hoagie,
Freedom of motion does not just guarantee you the right do practice yoga or do jumping jacks on your own front porch. It means that you can actually demand to travel on a plane operated by a private corporation.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/16/2016 @ 2:20 pmAgencies such as the FAA, Homeland Security, and TSA are all just right wing machinations devised to impede upon the motion of terrorists.
A background check to buy a gun, or passage through a metal detector to get on a plane, is one thing. A “no-gun list,” or a “no fly list,” controlled by the State at its discretion, is another thing entirely.
This is not a complicated analogy, folks.
Leviticus (efada1) — 6/16/2016 @ 2:23 pmIf it’s time to bury your guns, it’s time to dig them up again.
Ingot (3a6637) — 6/16/2016 @ 2:33 pmI know it’s not, Leviticus, I was funnin’ with ya. Like you, I certainly wouldn’t want to live in a society where I had to prove I should be allowed to do something I’m inherently entitled to do.
Rev. Hoagie© (734193) — 6/16/2016 @ 2:37 pmthat seems inefficient
happyfeet (831175) — 6/16/2016 @ 2:37 pmI just wish that “freedom of speech” means that I could force corporations regulated by the FCC such as ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN to give me air-time to express myself. Now they do enable people to express themselves, in the form of paid commercials, but they DO NOT accept just any paid commercial. They use discretion to determine which paid commercials to accept. They may not want to run a commercial by certain organizations.
But it feels so good to emote and accuse them of stomping on my freedom of speech.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/16/2016 @ 2:39 pmI just get tired of the legal bull$hit some times, Leviticus. For example one has a written enumerated Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. One does not have a written, enumerated right to an abortion. Yet somehow the law says I have to pay taxes to fund someone’s abortion but nobody is required to by me a gun. And if they have five, I pay for five. Why does one group have a “right” to be funded by others but the second doesn’t?
Rev. Hoagie© (734193) — 6/16/2016 @ 2:42 pmFreedom of movement, or of travel, has been recognized by the US Supreme Court as a fundamental right since the *1820s*. It was read into the privileges and immunities clause in the 1880s.
It’s true that it’s *possible* to say that travel by air is such a limited subset of the freedom of movement that denying it without due process is not a problem, and to my ears that’s a lot like saying that posting on the internet is just a subset of the freedom of speech and so it can be unproblematically denied without due process.
*As a practical matter*, preventing people from travelling by air so dramatically limits their options and increases their costs that it at the very least substantially burdens their right to free movement.
It should not be allowed without due process subject to judicial review.
————–
Driving licenses are a different beast entirely; denying someone the right to drive their own car does not deny their right to *be a passenger*.
Furthermore, there is *substantial* process involved in revoking someone’s driving license, and that process is always subject to judicial review. There’s a whole industry of lawyers dedicated to that judicial review.
aphrael (3f0569) — 6/16/2016 @ 2:49 pmaphrael,
So when the regulating government agency has suspicion that a certain individual may be too dangerous to fly on an airplane, their entire “right to travel” is therefore being compromised?
Can’t they just travel in their own car, or as you say, “be a passenger” with someone else?
I just love when liberals start complaining about regulating government agencies doing too much regulating.
You have freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean that Simon & Schuster or Capitol Records is obligated to provide you a platform.
The best solution is to provide your own platform.
We can even start debating whether or not the requisite purchase of an airline ticket impedes upon someone’s “right” of travel, couldn’t we? How about subway fare? Doesn’t that impede upon someone’s “right” to travel? What if you don’t have enough money to pay for Greyhound Bus fare? Must Greyhound still transport you since its your “right” to be transported?
See you’re confusing the right of free will/movement/travel with the obligation of a third party to PROVIDE THE GODDAMN TRANSPORTATION.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/16/2016 @ 3:05 pmThis is not rocket science. Seriously.
The government has to justify its discretionary impositions on the fundamental rights of its citizens. You keep trying to muddle clear restrictions on state action by unavailing comparisons to the rights of private parties. the two are distinct.
Leviticus (efada1) — 6/16/2016 @ 3:18 pm> You have freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean that Simon & Schuster or Capitol Records is obligated to provide you a platform.
> The best solution is to provide your own platform.
Absolutely.
So, say, United Airlines would be perfectly within its rights to deny me travel on the grounds that *United Airlines* thinks I am too dangerous to try.
But for the government to mandate that United Airlines do so is no different than the government mandating that Capitol Records deny me a recording contract.
aphrael (3f0569) — 6/16/2016 @ 3:54 pmNo respect is due in this instance
steveg (fed1c9) — 6/16/2016 @ 5:24 pmaphrael, I can understand a free person having the freedom of movement and/or travel but, that does not give them the right to any conveyance other than their own two feet.
And denying someone the right to fly does not deny their right to take a Greyhound. They can still move and they can still travel.
Rev. Hoagie© (734193) — 6/16/2016 @ 5:33 pmThat’s like saying that denying someone the right to keep and bear anything but a flintlock musket does not deny their right to keep and bear arms. It’s a line-drawing problem, and there’s no easy answer. The key is to put the proper burdens on the State.
Leviticus (4ceaff) — 6/16/2016 @ 5:40 pmI think it’s time to reevaluate, having had practically no effect,
http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2016/06/there-should-be-no-no-fly-list.html?spref=tw
narciso (732bc0) — 6/16/2016 @ 5:47 pmwhy some sleazy p.o.s. in the failmerican government should decide when i can fly is beyond me
they so nasty
happyfeet (831175) — 6/16/2016 @ 5:59 pmseriously though, the haney inquiry into the tabligh network was tabled, and now the slain are over 60, hence the scam with the iphone, they had no intention of getting any real information out of it, same with the tsa, name one terrorist they stopped in as many years, how many thousands of man hours in productivity wasted.
narciso (732bc0) — 6/16/2016 @ 6:10 pmThere is a way to deal with the problem.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2015/10/02/regarding-gun-violence-cnns-alisyn-camerota-cant-handle-the-truth-and-shes-not-the-only-one/comment-page-1/#comment-357261
Back during the Los Angeles riots, after rioters started shooting firefighters, the U.S. could have sent some bombers from Edwards Air Force Base and bomb the shit out of the rioters. this would have been followed up by the Army seizing control of Los Angeles. For “[y]ou don’t fight a junkyard dog with ASPCA rules. What you do is you take the leash off your bigger, meaner dog”. And this would be a permanent state of affairs. Civil administration in Los Angeles would be abolished. Soldiers would patrol every street, occupy every point. And there would be zero tolerance for the slightest of disorderly conduct. Any disorderly conduct will be met with lethal force. There will also be arbitrary arrests and searches, and even the slightest resistance would be met with lethal force.
This would cause the people to fear the U.S. military, And this fear would keep them in line. Thus, Los Angeles would have become the safest city on Earth. The model of governance- ruling by the fear of force- would no doubt have been followed by other cities. There would be no more mass shootings, because fear would keep the population in line.
What would have been the downside of “tak[ing] the leash off [our] bigger, meaner dog”?
Michael Ejercito (e5ad93) — 6/16/2016 @ 7:15 pmDue process protects the innocent, some of the time. Not much, but some. So it’s better than not having due process.
Richard Aubrey (472a6f) — 6/17/2016 @ 8:26 amDue process or no due process is irrelevant to the bad actors. They’ll do just fine either way.
Leviticus – it’s also like saying that the right to freedom of the press extends to newspapers but not blogs.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/17/2016 @ 12:43 pmDue process rewards the guilty with a plea bargain.
felipe (6bb3ce) — 6/17/2016 @ 12:44 pmAnd protects the innocent from a conviction.
Leviticus (4ceaff) — 6/17/2016 @ 12:46 pmWhoops. Sorry, didn’t see Richard Aubrey’s comment.
Leviticus (4ceaff) — 6/17/2016 @ 12:47 pm