Comments on: Airport screeners grope baby – now we’re safe

By: Michigan legislature considers banning TSA pat-downs | White Rose Institute

Michigan legislature considers banning TSA pat-downs | White Rose Institute — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:32:24 +0000

[...] she was groped at a checkpoint at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. A man captured a photo of an infant undergoing a search in Kansas City. And a pat-down in New Orleans left a 6-year-old girl in [...]

By: Michigan legislature considers banning TSA pat-downs – Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:50:24 +0000

By: timmos

timmos — Thu, 12 May 2011 20:13:49 +0000

"That said, I have to point out that just because something isn't in the constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right."

The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Agreed.

By: RugPilot

RugPilot — Thu, 12 May 2011 02:25:57 +0000

Maybe if the prospective bombers were told that explosives are made from nitrates and the main source of nitrates is waste from pig farms, they would think twice. All those suicide/homicde bombers have found themselves elsewhere. They are part pig and Allah doesn't like that.

By: Mike Maharrey

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 11 May 2011 23:43:07 +0000

I wasn't really arguing that we have a "right to drive" or fly for that matter, and yes, it is a privilege by definition (although I would argue that we have a right to freely travel). I was simply using the opponents' language. The point is that if they are going to remain logically consistent, then searching pedestrians would follow – and since just about anybody would protest sidewalk searches, my illustration makes its point. So it really wasn't meant as a literal examination of rights.

The real point is that the Fourth Amendment doesn't make exceptions for things that aren't rights, or privileges or whatever other label you care to put on an activity.

That said, I have to point out that just because something isn't in the constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right.

By: Jon M

Jon M — Wed, 11 May 2011 23:10:26 +0000

As far as the "right to drive," or the "right to safe highways," I would argue that no, we don't have a "right" to drive. It's not in Constitution–there's not even a "right" to ride a horse or drive a buggy–and we have to be licensed by the government, even though it's the state government(s), which by definition makes it a privilege; one that can also be suspended or revoked.

While I think TSA is a useless sloth of a government agency, that is doing anything but keeping us safe, I just wanted to bring the driving argument forth.

Really, we don't have a right to safe sidewalks either, because the only way for them to be truly safe would be for the government to keep them secure. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that police do not have the duty to protect us, we cannot expect that from the government. The "right" to safe sidewalks is one that we grant ourselves, through our Second Amendment rights.