November 23, 2010
Over the past few years we have seen a drastic increase in the control of the American people wishing to travel by public conveyance. We are required to undergo abusive and demeaning TSA inspections of the variety normally reserved for criminals. In fact that is exactly what they are looking for and will treat each and every one of us as criminals even though no crime has been committed (at least by us).
Video after video can be found popping up on online sites showing people being groped, insulted, embarrassed, assaulted, detained without cause, threatened, and arrested – all without any evidence or even suspicion of having committing any crime.
TSA officials, as well as others, have stated that if you do no want to undergo such treatment then do not fly. But as everyone knows that, in today’s world, it is nearly impossible for many people to conduct business or make a living and avoid flying.
TSA officials, and others, have also stated that we have no “right” to travel and that traveling is a privilege. Oh really? Then I suppose the next thing we’ll see in America is that we must have permission from the government before we can travel. I think I have heard of this before, oh yes, it was in the former Soviet Union. I guess were all communists now!
But I digress – the real question at hand is: do we really have the “right” to travel? If we do have the right to travel then what the government is doing is wrong. If we do NOT have the right to travel, and it is a mere privilege, then we are not free and we must become used to our new chains and adjust our oppressive yoke.
Some people will point out that the Constitution does not state specifically that anyone has the right to travel. This is true. It does not state specifically that you have the right to choose your own spouse, or to have children, or any number of “specific” rights. In fact the Constitution does not grant any rights to anyone. What we have come to know as the “Bill of Rights” is in fact not a statement of what rights we have as Americans, but more specifically an enumeration of certain rights that the federal government was prohibited from acting against. It was a protection of the people from government encroachment.
The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In fact the founders intended that the powers of the government were to be few and defined, whereas the rights of the people were to be vast. The American people have many rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and the government has no legal power to infringe upon those rights.
The Supreme Court has mentioned a number of times about the right to travel, such as in the Saenz v Roe case from 1999 in which they state: “(b) The right to travel embraces three different components: the right to enter and leave another State; the right to be treated as a welcome visitor while temporarily present in another State; and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State. Pp. 10—12.”
In the Kent v Dulles case the court held that: “(a) The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.”
The portion of the Fifth Amendment, noted above, states that: “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” So what is liberty? According to Blacks Law Dictionary liberty is “1. Freedom from arbitrary or undue external restraint, esp. by a government.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary states that liberty is: “Freedom from restraint. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.” Liberty is an integral part of the rights of the American citizen that is even espoused in our Declaration of Independence as “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
A further example that reinforces the right of liberty and travel is in the case of U.S. v Guest that states: “The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.”
Not only does this identify the right of the individual to travel but specifically denotes that other instrumentalities of interstate commerce are included in that right. Air travel is one of the most primary modes of interstate travel as clearly the vast majority of flights does not stay within the boarders of a state but are predominantly used for interstate travel.
Further, in Shapiro v Thompson the court held that: "[T]he right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment…it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action… Like the right of association… it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.”
For those that would like further instances in which the Supreme Court has found that travel was a right can review – Aptheker v Secretary of State (1964), Zemel v Rusk (1965), Oregon v Mitchell (1970), or Graham v Department of Public Welfare (1971). In each and every case the court upheld that we do indeed retain the right of travel regardless of the mode of conveyance. In fact the more common the mode of travel, the more inclusive that right becomes.
Even some in Congress agree that the TSA has gone too far -- Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fla.) stated: "I would not want my wife to be touched in [that way]," he said. "I would not want to be touched that way. There has to be a balance here. ... I think we've gone too far afield."
TSA, and our government, tell us that these measures are here to keep us safe. They tell us it is a necessary action to ensure that we are not attacked again. Although it was not the American citizen that caused 911 it seems that we are the ones suspected of it or at least paying the price for it. But what is the loss of a little freedom? What does it matter that we give up a little of our rights for perceived safety? Does it really matter that our country takes one more nudge toward true totalitarian control? I think it does.
So in light of the information provided above; our government agencies and officials must be either:
Ignorant of our rights, the law, their duty to protect our rights, and
of their oath to support the Constitution
2. Know that they are violating our rights and don’t care
3. Are purposely trying to move America toward a totalitarian regime
4. Or they are just morons reacting to the last threat and have know clue of what they are doing
In any event the actions of our government does not bode well for the future of our nation.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
As we continue to give quarter to the terrorist enemy, as we continue to give up more of our rights, and as we continue to allow more and more liberty to come under the control of an abusive central government, we must stop. We said nothing when they installed metal detectors at the airport, we said nothing when they made us take off our belts and shoes, and we said nothing when they wanted to pat us down. Now they grope our genetalia, the breasts of our women, or require us to be subjected to X-ray radiation and virtual strip searches, and we barely utter a peep.
We are told we have no right to fly. What will be the next right they tell us we do not have, and will we say anything then?
Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments
Considered. For the Independent Fournal.
2, U.S. Supreme Court, Saenz v. Roe
3, U.S. Supreme Court, Kent v. Dulles
4, Supreme Court of the United States
5, U.S. Supreme Court, Shapiro v. Thompson
� 2010 Michael LeMieux - All Rights Reserved
LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from
Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He
served in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard)
and trained in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified
paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in
the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member.
He served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple
Heart for injuries received in combat.
Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.
Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.
Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.
Contact Michael through his Website: www.constitutiondenied.com