01-29-2018, 11:27 AM
(01-29-2018, 03:37 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(01-28-2018, 07:20 PM)bobc Wrote: Take away a constitutional right, based upon supposition without a conviction in court? No.
I agree. To remove an explicit Constitutional right requires some form of judicial review. I am no lawyer, but there is a specific form of review. The review is not precisely a conviction, but close enough.
The right to travel is an invented right. It does not appear in the Bill of Rights. When it was invented, I do not know if the inventing judge mentioned specific forms of transportation. I am assuming the courts hold flight to be a risky form of transport, that the possibility of a crash outweighs their invented right.
I for one think flight is not in the Bill of Rights and should be denied essentially on government whim. This whim should not be a blank check. I have heard of mistakes on the no flight list, of people with the same name being punished for the deeds of another, of nets being cast far too widely. There ought to be judicial ways to get off the list if government power has been abused.
But the 2nd should not be infringed on whim.
The right to travel is presumed in English common law for any licit purpose. One has no legal right to travel for the furtherance of any crime or in flight from prosecution. The Founders apparently did not think of denying the right to travel. Maybe that was because George III did not see fit to deny the right to travel of such people as Sam Adams and Patrick Henry to form a 'treasonable' assembly in Philadelphia that culminated in something so disrespectful of His Majesty as the Declaration of Independence. Even so we have pasport controls.
If the government had enacted a law in the McCarthy era that prohibited Communists from traveling to meetings or to travel to give speeches, then such would have been a violation of the First Amendment. Such would be the same for prohibiting travel to support fascist causes including neo-Nazism and Ku Kluxism.
I see the "well-disciplined militia' clause establishing that people who would never be welcome into a well-disciplined militia for criminality, idiocy, lunacy, or overt disloyalty as potentially banning people from getting, keeping, or bearing arms. A no-fly list is probable cause for denying someone a right to bear arms.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.