RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process?

RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

WhoreMods -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 8:20:20 AM)
Just out of interest, I wonder if anybody in here is actually on the no fly list? That might explain some of the hysterical pissing and moaning from those insisting that a no fly list is a repudiation of the constitution and bill of rights, mightn't it?

BamaD -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 9:21:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Just out of interest, I wonder if anybody in here is actually on the no fly list? That might explain some of the hysterical pissing and moaning from those insisting that a no fly list is a repudiation of the constitution and bill of rights, mightn't it? I am not, to let best of my knowlege, on the no fly list. Of course all of my air travel was provided by the Air Force. So much for your argument.

BamaD -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 9:27:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Bama! quote: Sure they can go to court to get off the list but they are guilty untill such time they prove innocence. Again they want to turn our justice system on its head. Not so. You are not guilty of anything. You have not been accused of a crime. You are a person of interest, a suspect, nothing more. If you are striped of your 2nd amendment rights, or for that matter your right of free movement you are being penalized without trial or conviction just because someone, with little justification put you on a list. You know that MLK was on a comprable list in the 60's don't you. Should he have lost his right to travel because of that?

mnottertail -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 9:31:02 AM)
Yet its a nutsucker law, and you know how them guys are about 'freedom'.

DarkSalacious -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 9:44:38 AM)
Ms Kali, the evil of my 3 cats wishes to contribute ,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,kmlmlmlmlmlmlmlmlmlml'# I thought an episode of Boston Legal covered this? But to Kali the evil cat - I see what you are trying to say the kluelss klux khan - are the allowed to fly. And what of all the Americans who funded the terrorists or Ireland as a charity and then lets get onto the black (whatever that is) savages, immigrants, rapists, wife beaters, and so on..anyway wasn't it that long ago wiped Indians hmm Don that to death scuse the pun(and the Uk did as bad to the other Indians_) oh the japs locked them up in camps But make no mistake I understand religious profiling as for the American constitution it does not exist - unless you are an armless bear.

Musicmystery -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 10:28:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Bama! quote: Sure they can go to court to get off the list but they are guilty untill such time they prove innocence. Again they want to turn our justice system on its head. Not so. You are not guilty of anything. You have not been accused of a crime. You are a person of interest, a suspect, nothing more. If you are striped of your 2nd amendment rights, or for that matter your right of free movement you are being penalized without trial or conviction just because someone, with little justification put you on a list. You know that MLK was on a comprable list in the 60's don't you. Should he have lost his right to travel because of that? He was the Muslim terrorist perceived threat of his day. Police beat them, shot at them, etc. . . People haven't gotten much smarter. You, of course, were right there fighting for his civil rights, weren't you?

WhoreMods -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 10:29:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Just out of interest, I wonder if anybody in here is actually on the no fly list? That might explain some of the hysterical pissing and moaning from those insisting that a no fly list is a repudiation of the constitution and bill of rights, mightn't it? I am not, to let best of my knowlege, on the no fly list. Of course all of my air travel was provided by the Air Force. So much for your argument. Nice that you've recognised yourself as one of the hysterical ranters, but you're not the only one in this thread, sadly.

vincentML -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 10:58:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Bama! quote: Sure they can go to court to get off the list but they are guilty untill such time they prove innocence. Again they want to turn our justice system on its head. Not so. You are not guilty of anything. You have not been accused of a crime. You are a person of interest, a suspect, nothing more. If you are striped of your 2nd amendment rights, or for that matter your right of free movement you are being penalized without trial or conviction just because someone, with little justification put you on a list. You know that MLK was on a comprable list in the 60's don't you. Should he have lost his right to travel because of that? It is a no fly list. It is NOT a no bus list, NOT a no train list, NOT a no drive list, NOT a no hike list. It is NOT depriving anyone of their Liberty; it is merely making it inconvenient. There is also the much larger Terrorist Watch List to be considered. Secondly, SCOTUS has historically upheld restrictions on RIGHTS in 30% of cases when there is a COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST. To wit: U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification," such as race or national origin. To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests: It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. That is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately. Legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact," because popular perception is that most laws subjected to this standard are struck down. However, an empirical study of strict scrutiny decisions in the federal courts found that laws survive strict scrutiny more than 30% of the time. Given the history of airline hijackings and recent alleged terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando, you might agree that there is a compelling government interest afoot here. Does the Compelling government interest over-ride the second amendment right to bear arms? That would be up to SCOTUS to decide if a "no buy law" were legislated. STRICT SCRUTINY

thompsonx -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 1:24:35 PM)
ORIGINAL: vincentML It is a no fly list. It is NOT a no bus list, NOT a no train list, NOT a no drive list, NOT a no hike list. It is NOT depriving anyone of their Liberty; it is merely making it inconvenient. I am pretty sure much the same was said in support of plessy v. ferguson.

vincentML -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 2:14:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: vincentML It is a no fly list. It is NOT a no bus list, NOT a no train list, NOT a no drive list, NOT a no hike list. It is NOT depriving anyone of their Liberty; it is merely making it inconvenient. I am pretty sure much the same was said in support of plessy v. ferguson. Are you equating my position to "separate but equal?" I don't understand your reference. Sorry.

thompsonx -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 5:38:34 PM)
ORIGINAL: vincentML ORIGINAL: thompsonx It is a no fly list. It is NOT a no bus list, NOT a no train list, NOT a no drive list, NOT a no hike list. It is NOT depriving anyone of their Liberty; it is merely making it inconvenient. I am pretty sure much the same was said in support of plessy v. ferguson. Are you equating my position to "separate but equal?" I don't understand your reference. Sorry. Airplanes are seperate but equal mode of transportation to the others mentioned...seems pretty straightforward to me.

BamaD -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 5:49:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Just out of interest, I wonder if anybody in here is actually on the no fly list? That might explain some of the hysterical pissing and moaning from those insisting that a no fly list is a repudiation of the constitution and bill of rights, mightn't it? I am not, to let best of my knowlege, on the no fly list. Of course all of my air travel was provided by the Air Force. So much for your argument. Nice that you've recognised yourself as one of the hysterical ranters, but you're not the only one in this thread, sadly. So anyone who opposes this is a hysterical ranter? That makes your post a have you quit beating your wife type of question. No disagreement with your prolimation means you are right, disagreement make you a hysterical ranter. Sorry honey, that crack is as bad and as blind as your original statment.

BamaD -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 5:57:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: vincentML It is a no fly list. It is NOT a no bus list, NOT a no train list, NOT a no drive list, NOT a no hike list. It is NOT depriving anyone of their Liberty; it is merely making it inconvenient. I am pretty sure much the same was said in support of plessy v. ferguson. Are you equating my position to "separate but equal?" I don't understand your reference. Sorry. Your rights can be, with this taken away with no notification, with no chance to defend your self , and literally with no evidence. If you are too dangerous to fly, why is it ok for you to ride a train or bus. Don't lives of passengers on those modes of transportation count as much as the lives of those on aircraft? If you are that dangerous why aren't you being tried and locked up? Because the list is built on rumor and speculation. The only thing it is good for is harrasing people to make it look like they are doing something.

BamaD -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 6:00:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Bama! quote: Sure they can go to court to get off the list but they are guilty untill such time they prove innocence. Again they want to turn our justice system on its head. Not so. You are not guilty of anything. You have not been accused of a crime. You are a person of interest, a suspect, nothing more. If you are striped of your 2nd amendment rights, or for that matter your right of free movement you are being penalized without trial or conviction just because someone, with little justification put you on a list. You know that MLK was on a comprable list in the 60's don't you. Should he have lost his right to travel because of that? It is a no fly list. It is NOT a no bus list, NOT a no train list, NOT a no drive list, NOT a no hike list. It is NOT depriving anyone of their Liberty; it is merely making it inconvenient. There is also the much larger Terrorist Watch List to be considered. Secondly, SCOTUS has historically upheld restrictions on RIGHTS in 30% of cases when there is a COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST. To wit: U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification," such as race or national origin. To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests: It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. That is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately. Legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact," because popular perception is that most laws subjected to this standard are struck down. However, an empirical study of strict scrutiny decisions in the federal courts found that laws survive strict scrutiny more than 30% of the time. Given the history of airline hijackings and recent alleged terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando, you might agree that there is a compelling government interest afoot here. Does the Compelling government interest over-ride the second amendment right to bear arms? That would be up to SCOTUS to decide if a "no buy law" were legislated. STRICT SCRUTINY Alleged terroist attacks? Alleged? You don't seem to want to admit to terrorism, but you have no problem penalizing people to fight a proplem you seem to have doubts even exists.

vincentML -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 6:20:59 PM)
quote: Alleged terroist attacks? Alleged? You don't seem to want to admit to terrorism, but you have no problem penalizing people to fight a proplem you seem to have doubts even exists. Oh Jeez, is that all you have? [sm=rofl.gif]

ifmaz -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 6:54:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Why start at the 5th and 14th Amendments? Then there's your mischaracterization: 1) It's not a secret list -- we know about it. 2) When appropriate for the investigation, presumably there would be grounds for a search warrant. Nonetheless, a judge would so determine. 3) Your last sentence is just stupid. That's neither the case nor proposed by anyone. We're talking about ACTUAL things here, not the fantasies in your head. No, we don't know about it. The list is not public and there is no way to determine if one is on the list. The list contains only names of suspected terrorists, among others, like that of an 8 year old boy. The criteria for being included on the list has been demonstrated to be extremely flimsy. You're attempting to say I have 'fantasies' to downplay the willful violation of the Bill of Rights regarding a right you don't like but not another because you are a hypocrite. Search here for your name You realize that site is a parody, right? Please tell me you didn't honestly believe the TSA was an acronym for 'Terrorist Security Administration' (protip: it's 'Transportation Security Administration').

vincentML -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 7:23:28 PM)
quote: You realize that site is a parody, right? Please tell me you didn't honestly believe the TSA was an acronym for 'Terrorist Security Administration' (protip: it's 'Transportation Security Administration'). Good grief, I didn't. . . [:D] Well, the no fly list is maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center which is part of the FBI. The TSA does not maintain the list. But, I have had no luck finding the list itself. TSDB

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 7:29:47 PM)
quote: Your rights can be, with this taken away with no notification Do you actually have a right to fly on a commercial flight?

ifmaz -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 9:27:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: You realize that site is a parody, right? Please tell me you didn't honestly believe the TSA was an acronym for 'Terrorist Security Administration' (protip: it's 'Transportation Security Administration'). Good grief, I didn't. . . [:D] Well, the no fly list is maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center which is part of the FBI. The TSA does not maintain the list. But, I have had no luck finding the list itself. TSDB quote: ORIGINAL: https://www2.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/counterrorism/faqs.htm#FAQ6 ... Can I find out if I am in the TSDB? The TSC cannot reveal whether a particular person is in the TSDB. The TSDB remains an effective tool in the government’s counterterrorism efforts because its contents are not disclosed. If TSC revealed who was in the TSDB, terrorist organizations would be able to circumvent the purpose of the terrorist watchlist by determining in advance which of their members are likely to be questioned or detained. .... (Sidenote: it is 2016, why is a government agency still using '.htm'??)

ifmaz -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 9:40:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Your rights can be, with this taken away with no notification Do you actually have a right to fly on a commercial flight? One could make the argument that a commercial flight falls under freedom of movement.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625