I believe this is correct, but at the airport you're really faced with the reality of the situation. Everywhere else, the same mechanisms exist 'under the sheets', but there's a thin veneer of society pasted over the machine.
Are we comparing USA to other countries and saying America should be held to their standards? or is USA the strongest, most worked on Constitution in the world and what happens with it is what is important?
One, not a US thing. Two, the US Constitution is, despite the hyperbole.
Ignorance is bliss. Americans know because we can access our US court decisions, unlike any other country in the world. (Thanks be to CourtListener and other predecessors.) The "North Koreans have more rights, look it's right there in black letter law" is laughable, despite being repeated nonstop by cough some sectors of society cough since Soviet times.
I don't suppose you've actually, you know, read the constitution? If so, I'd be fascinated to hear about which parts pertain to, or don't apply at airports that should?
The main thing people seem to find difficult to comprehend is that planes owned by airlines are the private property of the airline. You're pretty much welcome to buy your own plane, and use it to carry anyone and anything you want, but if you want to get on someone else's airplane, no so much.
Sure, planes are private property. The airport is not. Airports are government property. And when I'm, for example, going through TSA, I'm not doing so on a plane, but rather in the airport.
I believe this is correct, but at the airport you're really faced with the reality of the situation. Everywhere else, the same mechanisms exist 'under the sheets', but there's a thin veneer of society pasted over the machine.
Are we comparing USA to other countries and saying America should be held to their standards? or is USA the strongest, most worked on Constitution in the world and what happens with it is what is important?
Here is an old article talking about this topic. Maybe old but seems relevant.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-airports-a-constitutional-tw...
One, not a US thing. Two, the US Constitution is, despite the hyperbole.
Ignorance is bliss. Americans know because we can access our US court decisions, unlike any other country in the world. (Thanks be to CourtListener and other predecessors.) The "North Koreans have more rights, look it's right there in black letter law" is laughable, despite being repeated nonstop by cough some sectors of society cough since Soviet times.
how
I don't suppose you've actually, you know, read the constitution? If so, I'd be fascinated to hear about which parts pertain to, or don't apply at airports that should?
The main thing people seem to find difficult to comprehend is that planes owned by airlines are the private property of the airline. You're pretty much welcome to buy your own plane, and use it to carry anyone and anything you want, but if you want to get on someone else's airplane, no so much.
The argument is that the environment is so saturated with Federal enforcement that the airlines become de facto Federal concessionaires.
Sure, planes are private property. The airport is not. Airports are government property. And when I'm, for example, going through TSA, I'm not doing so on a plane, but rather in the airport.
If you get your own plane, you won't have a problem finding a terminal without TSA.
Going through TSA is not a condition of using a government airport, it's just what happens if you use an airline.
In any case, being "government property" doesn't mean "completely free of regulation".