Woman arrested for refusing pat-down

SmarterThanYou said:
sometimes it's a pleasure embarrassing you.

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."

Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147



"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege."

Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516



"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22?1;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163



"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579


"... For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."

State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516



"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain."

Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82

and ...

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus."

State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864


"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781

and ...

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
Click to expand...

So what's your point? Driver's licenses are not required? Horse and buggies are allowed on the interstate?
 
apple0154 said:
Freedom to be able to carry a bomb on an airline. Yep, that's real freedom.

You really are a space cadet.

As STY stated "most men are cursed with thinking with their groins". Apparently, some men are cursed with thinking about their groins.
Click to expand...
Riiiight. Objecting to highly invasive, unconstitutional search procedures is the same as wanting people to have the right to bomb an airplane.

STRAWMAN!!

Fucking submoronic imbecile. A "space cadet" leaves more intelligence floating in the air after they fart than what you display on a daily basis.

If you are too scared to ride an airplane because previous security methods are not enough for you, then stay the fuck off of airplanes. You keep going on about how it's not mandatory to fly, fine. But let it be YOU who stays home, asshole. Why should I give up MY rights for YOUR moronic feelings of safety?

So, YOU, asshole, and those mindless mommy government fucks like you, why don't YOU stay off airplanes if flying with former security procedures is so fucking dangerous? Better stay off of trains, too. (Remember the attack in Spain?) And buses! Best stay clear of buses. How many buses have been bombed by terrorists over the years? Stay clear of buses. And with highway snipers on the prowl like the DC sniper, best leave your car in the garage. (and hide under the damned thing.) In fact, why don't you just go dig yourself a nice, deep safe hole and climb in? Pull the cover closed over your vacuum skulled head and cower in the dark like the whiny piece of chicken shit your are.

It's fucking yellow bellied whining chicken shit cowards like you that let terrorist win. Terrorists win by forcing us to change our fundamental ways of life to deal with their shit. I will NOT willingly give up my rights so whiny cowards like you can feel "safe". And I will NOT willingly allow my government to trample all over our rights so fucking lilly-livered twits like you can feel "safe".
 
apple0154 said:
So what's your point? Driver's licenses are not required? Horse and buggies are allowed on the interstate?
Click to expand...
The point, you brain dead fuck, is that our courts have established a long train of precedence that defines travel as a RIGHT. It is NOT a privilege, it is a RIGHT. And with a nation as large as the U.S., the right to freely travel between states, by necessity, includes air travel.
 
"...It is common misconception that any person in the United States has a right to drive. There is no such right in the US Constitution. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, and that privilege can be taken away or modified based on certain conduct, including several issues surrounding drunk driving cases. We all have a Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not to drive..."

http://www.duiattorney.com/dui-basics/privilege-to-drive
 
Good Luck said:
I will NOT willingly give up my rights so whiny cowards like you can feel "safe". And I will NOT willingly allow my government to trample all over our rights so fucking lilly-livered twits like you can feel "safe".
Click to expand...

Sure you will and you'll cough when told or they'll spank your little bottom, then and there! :lmao:

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Good Luck said:
Riiiight. Objecting to highly invasive, unconstitutional search procedures is the same as wanting people to have the right to bomb an airplane.

STRAWMAN!!

Fucking submoronic imbecile. A "space cadet" leaves more intelligence floating in the air after they fart than what you display on a daily basis.

If you are too scared to ride an airplane because previous security methods are not enough for you, then stay the fuck off of airplanes. You keep going on about how it's not mandatory to fly, fine. But let it be YOU who stays home, asshole. Why should I give up MY rights for YOUR moronic feelings of safety?

So, YOU, asshole, and those mindless mommy government fucks like you, why don't YOU stay off airplanes if flying with former security procedures is so fucking dangerous? Better stay off of trains, too. (Remember the attack in Spain?) And buses! Best stay clear of buses. How many buses have been bombed by terrorists over the years? Stay clear of buses. And with highway snipers on the prowl like the DC sniper, best leave your car in the garage. (and hide under the damned thing.) In fact, why don't you just go dig yourself a nice, deep safe hole and climb in? Pull the cover closed over your vacuum skulled head and cower in the dark like the whiny piece of chicken shit your are.

It's fucking yellow bellied whining chicken shit cowards like you that let terrorist win. Terrorists win by forcing us to change our fundamental ways of life to deal with their shit. I will NOT willingly give up my rights so whiny cowards like you can feel "safe". And I will NOT willingly allow my government to trample all over our rights so fucking lilly-livered twits like you can feel "safe".
Click to expand...
 
Good Luck said:
The point, you brain dead fuck, is that our courts have established a long train of precedence that defines travel as a RIGHT. It is NOT a privilege, it is a RIGHT. And with a nation as large as the U.S., the right to freely travel between states, by necessity, includes air travel.
Click to expand...

Fine. When your driver's license comes up for renewal just throw the paper away. And you can save money by not plating your car.

Let us know how that works for you.
 
Mojo said:
"...It is common misconception that any person in the United States has a right to drive. There is no such right in the US Constitution. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, and that privilege can be taken away or modified based on certain conduct, including several issues surrounding drunk driving cases. We all have a Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not to drive..."

http://www.duiattorney.com/dui-basics/privilege-to-drive
Click to expand...
You confuse a specific method of travel (driving) with the generalized right to use our roadways - the general right to travel freely. There is plenty of precedence which recognizes travel - and use of public roadways (not necessarily as a driver, but as a traveler) - as a basic right.

Arguably, given the circumstance of modern society, with jobs and/or family scattered over thousands of miles, AND with the rapid transit of air travel available AND with the government providing air travel routes in parallel to providing roadways, the right to travel freely would include a basic right to use said means of transport. Unreasonable restrictions on air travel could easily be equated to restrictions on the basic right to travel when other means cannot meet the person's need.
 
apple0154 said:
Fine. When your driver's license comes up for renewal just throw the paper away. And you can save money by not plating your car.

Let us know how that works for you.
Click to expand...
Careful - your profound ignorance keeps popping up.

Driving is only ONE way in which roadways may be used. Driving may be a revokable "privilege" (though I'd like to see what would happen if a license were revoked or withheld without cause), but there are many ways of accessing the roadways that do not involve driving. Travel IS a basic right, whether you like it or not, and the courts have upheld that right in numerous cases - cases which have been posted and referenced for you.
 
apple0154 said:
Sure you will and you'll cough when told or they'll spank your little bottom, then and there! :lmao:

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...
Yea, right, you totalitarian fuck. I did not spend 40 years supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States to have useless brain dead twits like you piss on it.

Just because you bend over for government does not mean everyone does.
 
Mojo said:
"...It is common misconception that any person in the United States has a right to drive. There is no such right in the US Constitution. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, and that privilege can be taken away or modified based on certain conduct, including several issues surrounding drunk driving cases. We all have a Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not to drive..."

http://www.duiattorney.com/dui-basics/privilege-to-drive
Click to expand...

this idiot is a product of positive rights, something that is wholly opposite of what the US constitution is about. The idea that if the constitution doesn't specifically list something as a right, then it is not is pure unadulterated bullshit.
 
Good Luck said:
Careful - your profound ignorance keeps popping up.

Driving is only ONE way in which roadways may be used. Driving may be a revokable "privilege" (though I'd like to see what would happen if a license were revoked or withheld without cause), but there are many ways of accessing the roadways that do not involve driving. Travel IS a basic right, whether you like it or not, and the courts have upheld that right in numerous cases - cases which have been posted and referenced for you.
Click to expand...

Show me one case where getting on an airplane is a basic right.

As for travel they have this option. http://www.flight.cz/cricri/english/
 
Good Luck said:
You confuse a specific method of travel (driving) with the generalized right to use our roadways - the general right to travel freely. There is plenty of precedence which recognizes travel - and use of public roadways (not necessarily as a driver, but as a traveler) - as a basic right.
Click to expand...

You confuse the right to travel with getting on a airplane. It is you who confuses the method with the generalized right.

Care to try again?
 
Good Luck said:
Yea, right, you totalitarian fuck. I did not spend 40 years supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States to have useless brain dead twits like you piss on it.

Just because you bend over for government does not mean everyone does.
Click to expand...

Then I suggest you don't buy airline tickets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top