Right to travel and airplanes
Royce
roycemit at flash.net
Wed Apr 11 16:46:50 PDT 2007
Greetings Mark and all,
The "government," meaning our servants, was granted the authority to
regulate interstate commerce in our supreme law. Commerce is defined as the
transportation of goods, services or persons here. Airlines transport
passengers. Passengers pay money for a ride from one place to another.
Therefore, the airlines may be regulated by the feds, our alleged servants.
The feds may therefore dictate to the airlines who they are allowed to
transport and who they may not transport.
People, not persons, have the right to travel from one point to another,
whether intrastate or interstate. People do not have the right to insist
that another transport them from one place to another. People do have the
right to contract for that transportation, but said transportation contract
must comport itself with the law of our servants granted authority to
regulate said transportation.
Therefore, we are free to use our personal conveyances to travel beyond the
control of commerce. But we have no right to insist that we be accepted as a
passenger in any mode of transportation lawfully regulated by our servants.
The trick is to keep our servants out of areas where they do not belong.
Royce Mitchell
NWCU law
-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 4:59 PM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Right to travel and airplanes
I don't think the government should be able arbitrarily to bar someone
from flying. But it wouldn't necessarily take an arrest to do so. If the
govt asks an airline not to permit certain persons to board planes -- or
requires airlines to prohibit them from boarding -- then the person
simply will not be permitted to go on board. If the person insists on
going on board and forcibly does so, then an arrest might be necessary.
But ordinarily no arrest would have to be involved. Of course, to the
extent that one is detained for questioning or for a search prior to
boarding, that could constitute something like an arrest, though once
again that might depend on whether the person is free to leave should
the person decide to forgo the air travel.
Again, I'm not justifying arbitrary denial of air travel opportunities,
but the analysis perhaps should not start with the legal grounds for an
arrest.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:01 PM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Right to travel and airplanes
Setting aside the questions (which I should just note are not
fallaciously ad hominem, to the extent they go to the witness's
credibility) about this particular story, Matthew Holden raises an
excellent question. If I might refine, may I ask the following?
(1) What (if anything), short of probable cause that would
justify an arrest, should let the government actually stop someone from
flying on commercial aircraft? I assume that there are not 325,000
people who are on such a literal no-fly list -- my sense is that
"no-fly" is sometimes used as an imprecise term to include lists that do
*not* bar people from flying -- but there may well be some, and we
should certainly think about those people's rights.
(2) What, short of probable cause that would justify an
arrest, should let the government detain someone for a 10-to-20-minute
extra screening or investigation -- I cite 10 minutes, because it sounds
like this is what happened to Prof. Murphy, see
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/04/professor_bashi.html?
(3) What, short of probable cause that would justify an arrest,
should let the government detain someone for a longer extra screening or
investigation, of the sort that both takes up a good deal of time and
might lead the person to miss his flight and thus delay his travels by
hours or maybe even a day?
Eugene
Matthew Holden writes:
________________________________
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
matthewhpolsci at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:23 PM
To: davidebernstein at aol.com; mgraber at gvpt.umd.edu;
conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Cc: hochschild at gov.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: More on the Murphy allegations of
speech-basedplacementonno-fly list, and on reactions to questio
As a student of public administration, it has struck me as pertinent to
try to determine what the state of knowledge is as to normal practice.
In that search, I have been referred indirectly to the work one
Professor Solove at George Washington University. In addition I have
been referred to 115 Yale LJ 2148.
On this list, I offer that for what it is worth. I would be obliged for
any detailed comment that might be offered as to the intellectual or
professional credibility of this work.
It is disappointing to find discussion turning into something like ad
hominem attacks on Professor Walter Murphy. Cards on the table.
Professor Murphy is a colleague. We have been on personally friendly
terms for more than 30 years. But he had my respect, on the basis of
his published work, long before I met him. He has an intellectual
record and a public record that can be evaluated. Might those who jeer
at him reconsider whether doing so (a) enhances their intellectual
credibility or (b) helps us better understand the state of affairs since
9/11?
The question still remains as to whether the right to travel is being
surrendered for the arguably 325, 000 persons on no fly lists. (115
Yale LJ 2148) Is the argument being made on this constitutional law
professors list that, "too bad, it has to be done"? Administration, in
my opinion, is the core governmental process and the empirical validity
of constitutional government is in what a society deems it necessary to
permit to be done administratively.
Matthew Holden, Jr.
Henry L. and Grace M. Doherty Professor Emeritus of Politics, University
of Virginia
DIRECT MAILING ADDRESS
P. O. Box 12588
LeFleur Station
Jackson, MS 39236-2588
Phone: 601-952-0596
-----Original Message-----
From: davidebernstein at aol.com
To: mgraber at gvpt.umd.edu; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: More on the Murphy allegations of
speech-basedplacementonno-fly list, and on reactions to questio
If you follow Orin Kerr's commentary at Volokh.com, you will find that
Prof.
Murphy IS NOT in the best position to determine anything, because he has
a grandiose sense of his own importance, and, as Orin writes, his
additional commentary on the incident is running into UFO sighting
testimony. Oh, and rather than his luggage being "lost", it was delayed
for a whole few hours, with nothing missing or damaged. I'd just as
soon ask Prof. Murphy who killed JFK or where Jimmy Hoffa is buried as
accept his assessments as valid.
-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
<javascript:parent.ComposeTo("conlawprof-bounces%40lists.ucla.edu",
"");>
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
<javascript:parent.ComposeTo("conlawprof-bounces%40lists.ucla.edu",
"");> ] On Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:17 PM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
<javascript:parent.ComposeTo("conlawprof%40lists.ucla.edu", "");>
Subject: RE: More on the Murphy allegations of
speech-basedplacementonno-fly list, and on reactions to questio
As I have commented to people privately, I do think there is a bit more
here, though hardly enough to make things a slam dunk case. Part of
what you had to be there for was some evaluation of the agent. How
casual was the remark, what was the basis, did the person seem
authoritative, intelligent, etc. In short, you might learn more than
whether this was a joke or not, but again, hardly enough for certainty.
Professor Murphy, of course, is best placed to make that evaluation.
Then you have to make some decisions about his capacity to make an
evaluation. Perhaps he is guilty of thinking too highly of himself.
But my sense of the universe is that this is a person who is reasonably
sober. Certainly, a great many people on the web have jumped to equally
unwarranted strong conclusions about Murphy based on his account.
I confess my own, fairly uneducated, sense of the universe, is that
someone who had some access to these things took offense at some things
Murphy said or did, that what went on is not at all systematic, but
targeted. Put differently, I suspect, that this was not an effort by
the Bush Administration to silence anyone, but an effort by some unknown
person to annoy Professor Murphy, possibly because of his speech,
possibly because of a low grade 5 years ago. As even the Transportation
Security people indicate, the process by which he was selected was not
entirely (or even mostly) random. Not exactly implausible the way
these things operate, not exactly provable either.
MAG
>>> Douglas Laycock <laycockd at umich.edu
<javascript:parent.ComposeTo("laycockd%40umich.edu", "");> > 04/11/07
1:05 PM >>>
I am quite prepared to think ill of the Bush Administration, but I
think there is just not much here in the Murphy incident. It all
depends on the casual remark of the airline agent, who is not likely to
know anything, and if the agent's statement were accurate, we should
have heard of more examples before this one. The defenders of the
Administration are winning this argument on the merits. And if there
were anything objectionable going on, incompetence is far more likely
than malice.
Quoting "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
<javascript:parent.ComposeTo("VOLOKH%40law.ucla.edu", "");> >:
> I realize that sometimes, "you had to be there," in the
sense
> that the case rests on the witness's account of facts that he
observed.
>
> But as I understand it, the contested question is whether
Prof.
> Murphy was added to some occasionally-screen list somewhere in some
> FBI/TSA/etc. back office. Neither Prof. Murphy nor we were there.
> Another question is whether Prof. Murphy's name popped up on a TSA
> computer with some special "we've had him under suspicion" flag (on
the
> first leg of the flight, not the second) -- even if that ever
happens, I
> take it Prof. Murphy wasn't there to look at that computer screen.
>
> Prof. Murphy was there to talk to the airport (or was it
TSA?)
> employee, and to hear the employee's assertion that speaking at
antiwar
> events would get one placed on the occasionally-screen list. But I
> don't doubt Prof. Murphy's testimony about what he heard; I am
simply
> not sure why we should think the employee was speaking accurately.
So
> I'm not sure why being there would tell us much (except that it
might
> rule out the possibility that the employee was simply joking,
unless he
> was joking in a very deadpan way). What am I missing here?
>
> Eugene
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
<javascript:parent.ComposeTo("conlawprof-bounces%40lists.ucla.edu",
"");>
>> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
<javascript:parent.ComposeTo("conlawprof-bounces%40lists.ucla.edu",
"");> ] On Behalf Of Mark
Graber
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:59 AM
>> To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
<javascript:parent.ComposeTo("conlawprof%40lists.ucla.edu", "");>
>> Subject: RE: More on the Murphy allegations of speech-based
>> placementonno-fly list, and on reactions to questio
>>
>> A few small points on this and other points.
>>
>> 1. To some extent, this is an instance of "you had to be there." So
>> a good deal of the concern is that, at least in my opinion, this is a
>> person with very good judgment who is not likely to fly off the
>> handle.
>> I think the story plays out somewhat differently with a different
>> person.
>>
>> 2. My sense is that there is something fishy going on that is not
>> entirely innocent, but that the fishiness is consistent with a number
>> of concerns between pure randomness and being on the no-fly list.
>>
>> MAG
>> _______________________________________________
>> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
<javascript:parent.ComposeTo("Conlawprof%40lists.ucla.edu", "");> To
>> subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof[1]
>>
>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
>> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
<javascript:parent.ComposeTo("Conlawprof%40lists.ucla.edu", "");>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof[2]
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
as
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that
are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>
Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law
School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
734-647-9713
Links:
------
[1]
/horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ucla.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailm
an%2
Flistinfo%2Fconlawprof
[2]
/horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ucla.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailm
an%2
Flistinfo%2Fconlawprof
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
<javascript:parent.ComposeTo("Conlawprof%40lists.ucla.edu", "");> To
subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
<javascript:parent.ComposeTo("Conlawprof%40lists.ucla.edu", "");> To
subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted;
people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437> .
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list