Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Problems with the TSA

saizai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 218 posts

Re: Problems with the TSA

#201

Post by shawn-butler »

tptacek wrote: post #198
shawn-butler wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a) "Um, no", but times a thousand! b) Quibbling? Have you ever practiced law or been involved in it? If not, prepare yourself; you are in for a frustrating experience. What you call quibbling is what you pay several thousand dollars an hour for. That is the essential function of the legal profession. To quibble. However, it is not "quibbling" to state that SCOTUS has no power of judicial review granted in the US Cons…

The person you're replying to is an actual lawyer.

And not a dog? Thanks for answering a question not addressed to you however.

It was really weighing on my mind.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#202

Post by tptacek »

shawn-butler wrote: post #201
tptacek wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you're replying to is an actual lawyer.

And not a dog? Thanks for answering a question not addressed to you however. It was really weighing on my mind.

When you asked, "Have you ever practiced law or been involved in it?", I took that to mean you'd want to know that.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#203

Post by tptacek »

shawn-butler wrote: post #199
tptacek wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the fundamental argument you are trying to make. On the one hand, you appeal to the Constitution as a document of natural law (it very much isn't, but let's stipulate that it is). Then you proceed to argue that judicial review was a usurpation by the Supreme Court, which has zero power and is apparently increasingly irrelevant. If you think there is a set of core moral values animating the country,…

Maybe because I am making no fundamental argument? I have no interest in a dialog. You made several egregious errors. They were pointed out. First that the US Constitution is not a moral document. Second, that SCOTUS is an "ultimate" arbiter. If you do not believe that the US Constitution and other founding documents were products of Enlightenment thinking and that natural law principles did not inform the debate the…

Then, as you say, we have nothing more to discuss, and I'm spared the need to respond to your non-sequitur question.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#204

Post by shawn-butler »

tptacek wrote: post #203
shawn-butler wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe because I am making no fundamental argument? I have no interest in a dialog. You made several egregious errors. They were pointed out. First that the US Constitution is not a moral document. Second, that SCOTUS is an "ultimate" arbiter. If you do not believe that the US Constitution and other founding documents were products of Enlightenment thinking and that natural law principles did not inform the debate the…

Then, as you say, we have nothing more to discuss, and I'm spared the need to respond to your non-sequitur question.

Non-sequitur? Perhaps the meaning of that phrase eludes you?

You wrote: "The Constitution largely avoids moral concerns --- or, more precisely, values and substantive rights."

I replied that slavery is essentially a moral question and is at the very heart of the Constitution. It would not have been ratified without it.

You ignored this statement entirely in your vacuous reply.

Did that help you to see how it follows?

Re: Problems with the TSA

#205

Post by shawn-butler »

tptacek wrote: post #202
shawn-butler wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And not a dog? Thanks for answering a question not addressed to you however. It was really weighing on my mind.

When you asked, "Have you ever practiced law or been involved in it?", I took that to mean you'd want to know that.

Oh ok. Usually, in the English language, and a great many others, when someone asks a question and then answers it in the very next sentence ("If not, prepare yourself; you are in for a frustrating experience") then that sentence is considered a rhetorical answer.

That is, a question not in need of an answer. Hope that helps you.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#206

Post by javert »

tptacek wrote: post #183
javert wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your point in the first paragraph, now. There is legal, and there is moral. The SC is the final, ultimate arbiter of _legality_, not morality. This isn't a conflict with the Constitution, it's just a "meta-Constitutional" issue. You act like this is a bizarre notion, but it's actually the common-sense one. First, nobody holds the Constitution as a moral document, only as a legal one. Second, the founding…

I think you pulled "the government doesn't follow the 4th Amendment" out of the air. The First Amendment is written in remarkably clear language. "Congress shall make no law". Every court that has confronted the First Amendment has pointed out that there's very little wiggle room in it. And yet there is room to maneuver in the First Amendment . You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater; you can't stand outside…

What constitutes "unreasonable"? IANAL, but presumably, it would be doing something without having a good reason to do it, which is what's happening here. (Looking back, this looks sarcastic, but I didn't mean that sarcastically.)

Under your way of looking about it, that whole amendment is completely worthless, because "reasonable" is anything.

> balance the needs of the state against those of the people

There is no such thing as a "need of the state" that is opposed to "needs of the people." They're one in the same. I'm not claiming this is obvious, but I'm claiming that it's true. (BTW, there are no "needs of the people" apart from "needs of specific, individual people.")

Tangentially, your example of "avoidable" administrative searches actually is self-defeating. Air travel and road travel are completely analogous in every relevant way. So, the laws of the country are inconsistent.

Specifically, if commercial air travel is avoidable ("Hey, just drive from North Carolina to California,") then so is car travel ("Hey, just walk to work every day").

I mean, hell, why don't we just "avoid" going out of the house each morning?

The lawyers SHOULD go, "Hey, we can't stop cars on the roads without a reasonable cause, so we can't stop all air passengers, either." Of course, instead they'll just go, "Hey, now we can use the TSA to screen cars, too!" Talk about the erosion of rights.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#207

Post by javert »

tptacek wrote: post #182
javert wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Privilege is not a false concept just because you don't like it. I didn't say it was a false concept _in general_. For a kid to get an allowance is a privilege. What I should implied (and should have have said explicitly) is: the relationship between people and their government should not be governed by a notion of privilege. > Whether or not you agree with the policy, you can't just ignore the existence of Supreme…

Your conception of the Constitution's place in moral arguments is unfounded. The Constitution largely avoids moral concerns --- or, more precisely, values and substantive rights. What the Constitution cares about are the "constitutive" issues: the procedural rights that ensure that all citizens have access to the political process and to the same dispute resolution mechanisms, and that attempt to ensure (as best any…

I agree with most of what you said, and I think you are misunderstanding what I said because the context got complicated. So let me recap, in a nutshell.

Someone said that flying is a privilege. I said, no, it's not. He said, yes it is, because that's what the Supreme Court has ruled. I said, no, that's irrelevant: I'm making a philosophical point that would hold in _any_ country. The Constitution/Supreme Court is not the source of morality (including moral issues, such as what a privilege) is; reality is. It's a moral question, not a legal one.

> Constitution is not just not a source for our morality and values; it is deliberately designed to avoid those questions.

Exactly my point, although you seem to be trying to argue against me here.

Separately, I think the Constitution happens to be morally right with regards to the 4th Amendment, and that the government is not legally acting in accordance with the 4th Amendment.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#208

Post by saizai »

pekk wrote: post #100
mgkimsal wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1 quart may have been specifically tailored to his own requirements, but I can imagine that many people, for most flights, would be fine with medical liquid amounts of 1q or smaller. Trying to bring a gallon or two of something on a plane just may not be practical, regardless of the medical necessity, and other transport might be required. But... the 3oz rule has struck me as stupid from day one.

Can you provide any more specific justification for the specific measure of liquid to allow, or is it just going to be what you can imagine seems reasonable to you?

My basis was just their current policy: you're allowed 1 quart of non-medical liquids separated into 3 ounce containers. (/eyeroll)

I'd be fine if they want to change the limit. My point is simply that they should test the liquid for whether it's an explosive or not, rather than limiting non-explosives you can carry or who can carry them.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#209

Post by zapdrive »

anigbrowl wrote: post #176
zapdrive wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I fail to see what my professional and personal friendship with people in the movie industry has to do with my opinions on the legalities of flying. Both of these advocate taking away rights from the citizens, the rights for which we have paid a heave price.

No they don't.

Yes they do.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#210

Post by dctoedt »

shawn-butler wrote: post #197
dctoedt wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sorry but you are just making sh t up* Um, no; for a non-lawyer (at least I think he is), Thomas is one of the more knowledgeable people around about the law. > The Supreme Court is also not the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional rights, that is reserved to the people to elect officials that either comport with the Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS or not. You're quibbling. Yes, lawyers all learn in fir…

a) "Um, no", but times a thousand! b) Quibbling? Have you ever practiced law or been involved in it? If not, prepare yourself; you are in for a frustrating experience. What you call quibbling is what you pay several thousand dollars an hour for. That is the essential function of the legal profession. To quibble. However, it is not "quibbling" to state that SCOTUS has no power of judicial review granted in the US Cons…

> Have you ever practiced law or been involved in it?

As Thomas correctly notes below, yes; that's how I earn my crust. (A lawyer would have looked that up for herself.)

> The judiciary has no real power other than that of apparent authority.

That's not exactly stop-the-presses news. Lawyers generally are taught it during their first week of law school, just in case they missed it in their college Government 101 courses or high-school civics.

> It is an assumed power; an assumption which could just as easily be undone by another accident of history.

True enough, but the system has worked reasonably well for a couple of centuries now, achieving a kind of dynamic stability. (And yes, I'm mindful of those Court decisions that history has rightly come to regard as, how shall I put this, less than successful, such as Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu.)

You're welcome to try to convince ~150 million voters and their elected representatives that a change in the arrangement is warranted. Good luck with that; in fact, good luck even getting their attention, given that all of those folks do have a few other things on their minds. Past attempts to overhaul the arrangement have never caught on and in fact have been viewed with suspicion, for example as FDR learned the hard way when he tried to pack the Court in the mid-1930s.

Post reply on HN