Harvard Law Professor: Flying Isn't a Right. Gun Ownership Is

Actually, the right to travel is a right, it is just not an enumerated right which means it is left, not to the Feds, but to the states and the People. Strange how people have gotten the whole idea reversed. If the Constitution doesn't give the Feds a power - We get it.
 
Yes regarding limitation on gov....no regarding right to travel on an airplane or any other service that requires someone else to provide their labor/private property

Do you have a right to walk down the road/on a publc way? Of course

Do you have a right to fly on someone elses plane? Of course not

Same argument applies to Healthcare and a raft of other stuff.....if it requires someone else to provide their labor and private property for you to do it.......then its not a right

Right. Just as the right to bear arms doesn't give you the right to have someone buy you a gun.

Similarly, the right to fly means that the government shouldn't get in the way of individuals seeking to purchase air travel from one state to another state.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, your right keeps the government from preventing you from doing something. It doesn't give you the ability to force someone to do something. Same as any other right.
 
But unless you own your own plane you have no right per se to travel by air as it requires others to provide some service/private property to make it happen.

Gov needs to stop being an impediment to commerce and get back to eliminating barriers to commerce as per the original intent of "commerce clause"

You are making it seem like the govt. has the right to tell you and a private person or corporation (The airline) that you can't make a deal for a legal service. You have a right to travel, and regardless of how you choose to do so what gives them the right to stop you on a non govt. owned airline? You are not forcing someone to take you on an airplane, they are forcing the airlines to disallow it. Without such a list, the airlines would make their own decision on who can vs cannot fly. If a private airline/corporation decides you can't use their service that is their choice, govt. forcing it through a secret list with no due process for getting off of it is not reasonable.
 
...
Do you have a right to fly on someone elses plane? Of course not
...

Without their permission? Of course not.

WITH their permission? Of course. It's a private contract between a provider and a consumer. With the debatable exception of charging a sales tax, .gov has no legit place in the transaction.

If an airline has policies that make them susceptible to terrorism, people will tend to go with another airline, unless the pricing is so competitive that they roll the dice.
 
Right. Just as the right to bear arms doesn't give you the right to have someone buy you a gun.

Similarly, the right to fly means that the government shouldn't get in the way of individuals seeking to purchase air travel from one state to another state.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, your right keeps the government from preventing you from doing something. It doesn't give you the ability to force someone to do something. Same as any other right.

The Fed does have the power to govern interstate commerce, which is in the constitution. I think that if a person from New England who bought a ticket from an airline based in say Florida for a flight from Logan to Hawaii, the transaction would consist of interstate commerce.

Now flying from Boston to Nantucket?
 
Last edited:
But unless you own your own plane you have no right per se to travel by air as it requires others to provide some service/private property to make it happen.

Gov needs to stop being an impediment to commerce and get back to eliminating barriers to commerce as per the original intent of "commerce clause"

So unless you own an iron mine to mine the ore to build a gun, you don't have the right to weapons? Your argument is pretty flawed.
 
The Fed does have the power to govern interstate commerce, which is in the constitution. I think that if a person from New England who bought a ticket from an airline based in say Florida for a flight from Logan to Hawaii, the transaction would consist of interstate commerce.

Now flying from Boston to Nantucket?

This is the whole problem with the commerce clause. It was intended that the feds would be able to prevent barriers to commerce, not throw up barriers.

Look at Article 4 of the articles of Confederation. The only reason there isn't a similar thing in the Constitution is because everybody thought it was so basic that it wasn't needed anymore. You guys are thinking about things backwards again. Power that the feds get must be given, all else remains in state and the People.

States are not allowed to enforce controls on their borders - what does that mean? Does that mean that the Feds get to? No. It means that the People get to move between states without restrictions from either the Feds or the States.
 
If people have the right to move between states without restrictions, why are there speed limits? Why do the state police of a state sit on the side of highways? Why do 49/50 states mandate seat belts?

I agree with your principle, but it's too much theory and not looking at the real world and how it really operates. If you truly think that traveling requires the absolute right to not be regulated, I urge you to file suit and see where it goes.
 
You would think one of the most basics of all human "rights" is the right to self defense.
obama-gun-control.jpeg
 
So unless you own an iron mine to mine the ore to build a gun, you don't have the right to weapons? Your argument is pretty flawed.
No, jpk is saying you have the right to own weapons but you can't force someone to sell them to you if they don't want to.
 
No, jpk is saying you have the right to own weapons but you can't force someone to sell them to you if they don't want to.

yes, and I never said that. Whenever I'm talking about rights, I'm talking about negative rights, as in rights that you are able to exercise without government preventing you from exercising them. The right to travel means that if you can acquire the method of transportation by outright purchase or by contract (plane, car, etc) then you should be able to travel without government stopping you.
 
Yes regarding limitation on gov....no regarding right to travel on an airplane or any other service that requires someone else to provide their labor/private property

Do you have a right to walk down the road/on a publc way? Of course

Do you have a right to fly on someone elses plane? Of course not

Same argument applies to Healthcare and a raft of other stuff.....if it requires someone else to provide their labor and private property for you to do it.......then its not a right
But it being a right does not mean the fed has to pay for it, just that they cant interfere with my attempt to access it.
 
And POTUS was a Constitutional Professor. He learned every way to violate it.
He was an adjunct professor which means he taught a class once. But you know he knows nothing about the Constitution so the students got robbed..

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
If people have the right to move between states without restrictions, why are there speed limits? Why do the state police of a state sit on the side of highways? Why do 49/50 states mandate seat belts?

I agree with your principle, but it's too much theory and not looking at the real world and how it really operates. If you truly think that traveling requires the absolute right to not be regulated, I urge you to file suit and see where it goes.

Those are all restrictions within the boundaries of individual states. In fact, not one of your examples draws a parallel to the free flow of commerce between states because none of them restrict travel between states, just what could be termed reasonable limits on travel inside of said states.

The state police example is markedly weak as it specifically demarks the limits of one state's power with respect to another. A better example would be if Fed agents were not allowed to impede travel between states. This is where the negative right slams into the reality of federal interpretation.
 
Last edited:
Those are all restrictions within the boundaries of individual states. In fact, not one of your examples draws a parallel to the free flow of commerce between states because none of them restrict travel between states, just what could be termed reasonable limits on travel inside of said states.

The state police example is markedly weak as it specifically demarks the limits of one state's power with respect to another. A better example would be if Fed agents were not allowed to impede travel between states. This is where the negative right slams into the reality of federal interpretation.

QFT. Sadly, we no longer have any rights at all, just privileges.
 
You are making it seem like the govt. has the right to tell you and a private person or corporation (The airline) that you can't make a deal for a legal service.

He isn't making it seem like that. He is saying he believes that.

The Bill of Rights clearly, with little room for misinterpretation, gives you the ability to come and go as you please unless the government can show just cause why you should not. Just as an AR-15 is in common use today for sporting use and self defense, planes, trains, and automobiles are in common use for travel. They should be viewed as utilities, which means effectively that they ARE there for the common wealth.

Therefore, making the argument that the government has within its power the ability to restrict a person's right to move about the country by plane, train, or automobile is basically supporting the totalitarian view that due process is invalid and the government is within its power to suppress anyone it doesn't like.

- - - Updated - - -


You are contradicting yourself.
 
Yes regarding limitation on gov....no regarding right to travel on an airplane or any other service that requires someone else to provide their labor/private property

Do you have a right to walk down the road/on a publc way? Of course

Do you have a right to fly on someone elses plane? Of course not

Same argument applies to Healthcare and a raft of other stuff.....if it requires someone else to provide their labor and private property for you to do it.......then its not a right

Just so I am perfectly clear: Your post makes it seem as if the private company, who is in the business of providing a commonly available commodity - air travel - is deciding arbitrarily that it does not want to provide you with a service - six months after it sold you the service in question. This is a gross misrepresentation of what is happening and you (I hope) realize that.

In fact, the government is requiring these private companies to cross-check lists managed by the government and deny service to anyone whose name resembles a name that is on the list without explanation or justification.

I can't speak for you, but if I sold a product, and the government told me that I should not provide a service to random people because I told you not to, I would be mighty skeptical.

In fact, I might be damned suspicious. Heck, I might just tell the government to go **** itself and sell my product to those people anyway, given I have no particular reason to do otherwise.

Frankly, your side of this argument is looking a lot like Gene Hackman in, well, pick a movie. I'm in charge, do what I say or I'll kill you 'cause I can. That ain't freedom.

Take the flip side of your argument. What do you call it when the government mandates who must provide service to whom, and who cannot provide a service to whom? You seem to be supporting a model where my rights end when another human is involved, but you are totally ignoring the FACT that the other person is willingly doing business with me.

ETA: I apologize if it seems like I am ****ting on you, but what you imply in your post really annoys me. Maybe that isn't what you mean, but ...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom