Federal Judge Rules No-Fly List Unconstitutional

A federal judge in Oregon says the process surrounding the federal government's "no-fly list" is unconstitutional. Specifically, U.S. District Judge Anna Brown said the process doesn't give Americans on the list an effective way to challenge their inclusion.

"In a 65-page opinion issued Tuesday ... Brown ordered the government to come up with a new way for the 13 plaintiffs to contest their inclusion on the list that prohibits them from flying in or through U.S. airspace. The government must provide notice to the plaintiffs that they are on the roster and give the reasons for their inclusion, Brown wrote. She also ordered that the government allow the plaintiffs to submit evidence to refute the government's suspicions.

"The decision marks a big win for the plaintiffs, all U.S. citizens or permanent residents, and the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued the case on their behalf. The plaintiffs have all been denied boarding due to their placement on the list, they argue, despite never having been charged with a terrorism-related offense."

Federal Judge Rules No-Fly List Process Is Unconstitutional

This means that things could change for the no-fly list - which is a good thing because in this case alone there are 13 people who were placed on there without knowing why, and without any good reason (they were not charged with any terrorism offenses, for example). These 13 people were not able to attend family events or even family overseas and had limited access to the work and education they desired.

Most importantly, there is no due process to get on the no-fly list. You don't have a way to challenge it before you are placed on it, although there is rumored to be a way to get off it (once you find out you are on it). You often don't know why you are on it, which makes it hard to prove your innocence.

The no fly list is a consequence of creeping globalism.

It will eventually inhibit people across all nations under the guise of national security.



It's NWO 101.

This would have likely not come up as an issue had the government not headed down the road to tie the no-fly list into the purchase of a firearm.

There's no constitutional right to fly. But using the list as a justification for denying someone a constitutional right is very problematic, IMO.

The problem I have with a no fly list is that if someone is deemed such a threat that the government is going to restrict their movements, then that person needs to either be charged with a crime or deported if an immigrant. Obviously, the government has some information on a person and if that info is enough to restrict movement it should be enough to charge with a crime. The government should either put up and charge or shut up imho.

a reply to: darkbake

I might add
the 'no-fly list' also includes ships, trains and even Greyhound buses....

a reply to: yeahright

There's no constitutional right to fly.

Precisely why this is bigger than the US Constitution.
It's a globalist plot.

It goes beyond the borders of the United States of America.

a reply to: darkbake

I posted a link in another thread to the story of former Senator Edward Kennedy.
He found himself mistakenly placed on a no-fly list and it took him 3 weeks to get his name removed from the list.... a US Senator!

a reply to: darkbake

Unfortunately this does nothing to the no-fly list. By the end of our lifetime there will be "lists" for every single thing.

Welcome to the slow but assured descent into the corporate NWO.

What will shock people when it comes out is that there is now also a "no call" list.

Most people know about the "do not call" list, where you can put your name on a list to prevent telemarketers from calling you. However, there's a secret reverse list, where the government blocks individuals from calling out to certain destinations.

For example, a suspect in the US might be blocked from calling Iran, or Syria, using his telephone. He wouldn't know, since it would just seem that the line for international calls is having problems to that particular destination.

This is supersecret right now. But, eventually it will come out too. When the individual dials '0' to use the operator assistance to get through, the operator will report to him that it's a "security issue", but give no further info.

originally posted by: yeahright
This would have likely not come up as an issue had the government not headed down the road to tie the no-fly list into the purchase of a firearm.

There's no constitutional right to fly. But using the list as a justification for denying someone a constitutional right is very problematic, IMO.

Indeed, and that's why all 4 version's failed. The democrates voted down the two Republican versions that had a "due process " clause added then threw their little tantrum and expect the constitution to be ignore with their version. Pretty pathetic political stunt.

Great news!

Perhaps the do-nothing Republican Congress will be forced to finally repair this flawed remnant of the Bush Administration.

Should have been done years ago; should have been done right (in light of Constitutional due process) from the beginning.

a reply to: darkbake

We've known it for years, so a federal judge just figured it out?

a reply to: darkbake

Think of all those Democratic Congress people sitting on the floor pouting because they could not ram their UNCONSTITUTIONAL edicts down our throat while eating Chik-fil-A.

I am thankful that there are some people able to see through the partisan rhetoric and rule this as unconstitutional as any one with a shred of common sense knew it was.

a reply to: darkbake

This is great news. That list was a haphazard mess of racist profiling and agendas.

originally posted by: Doom and Gloom
a reply to: darkbake

Think of all those Democratic Congress people sitting on the floor pouting because they could not ram their UNCONSTITUTIONAL edicts down our throat while eating Chik-fil-A.

I am thankful that there are some people able to see through the partisan rhetoric and rule this as unconstitutional as any one with a shred of common sense knew it was.

I guess you don't include yourself in the group of those able to see "through the partisan rhetoric"?

LOL, actually, your post is quite humorous ... thanks.

Great news! The list is legal.

Am I understanding the judge is saying it is ok, and you are guilty until proven innocent?

-after paying a lawyer.

originally posted by: yeahright
There's no constitutional right to fly.

Wiki

As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."

As early as the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as not needing explicit enumeration.

And the most important one that negates your claim (emphasis mine):

Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. § 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."

So, tell me again how there's no constitutional right to fly, because even though it's not specifically enumerated in the constitution proper, there's that funny little ninth amendment--that IS a part of the constitution--that reminds you that rights need not be enumerated in order to exist.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You cherry picked that last one just a bit ...

Source

(a)Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.

(b)Use of Airspace.— (1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace.The Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: darkbake

I posted a link in another thread to the story of former Senator Edward Kennedy.
He found himself mistakenly placed on a no-fly list and it took him 3 weeks to get his name removed from the list.... a US Senator!

Hell, if I was a fan of such a list, it seems to me that most politicians should be the first ones on the list, as corrupt as they are.

But the list is so obviously unconstitutional that it amazes me that it exists and that most people think that it's a good idea.

I hate American apathy...it's our most voluminous domestic product that we create.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Right, but the onus should be on the FAA and the government to PROVE that a citizen is an absolute threat to the safety of an aircraft. That's where the arbitrary creation of lists fails the rights that I noted and to which you responded. If something has been deemed a right multiple times throughout history, there should be more involved in denying someone the said right than just creating lists on a whim.